Submitting author: @milicag (Milica Grahovac)
Repository: https://github.com/LBNL-ETA/MSWH
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @sjpfenninger
Reviewers: @brynpickering, @nmstreethran
Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz
:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @milicag. Currently, there isn't an JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@milicag if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).
Editor instructions
The JOSS submission bot @whedon is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @whedon can do for you type:
@whedon commands
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.
:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
@whedon commands
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
@whedon generate pdf
PDF failed to compile for issue #2666 with the following error:
/app/vendor/ruby-2.4.4/lib/ruby/2.4.0/find.rb:43:in block in find': No such file or directory - tmp/2666 (Errno::ENOENT)
from /app/vendor/ruby-2.4.4/lib/ruby/2.4.0/find.rb:43:incollect!'
from /app/vendor/ruby-2.4.4/lib/ruby/2.4.0/find.rb:43:in find'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-132474d2711b/lib/whedon/processor.rb:61:infind_paper_paths'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-132474d2711b/bin/whedon:50:in prepare'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/command.rb:27:inrun'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/invocation.rb:126:in invoke_command'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor.rb:387:indispatch'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/base.rb:466:in start'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-132474d2711b/bin/whedon:119:inload'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in
@whedon generate pdf
PDF failed to compile for issue #2666 with the following error:
Can't find any papers to compile :-(
@milicag - where in this repo is the JOSS paper? We also require an OSI-approved license, normally a file called LICENSE
@danielskatz The paper was on issue5_submit_to_joss branch. I just merged it into master.
The license is in the legal.md file.
@danielskatz The paper compiled fine in the test you provide.
Thanks for the quick responses! Let me know if you need anything else at this time.
Also note that the repository does not have the commit history as it was moved from the original repository at open-sourcing.
@whedon generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@danielskatz compiled, see above.
Which OSI-approved license is this?
BSD-3-Clause
This is modified from https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause which we don't allow.
Can you break this off into a LICENSE file that is just the BSD license, without any changes other than in the first line?
dalonsoa, brynpickering, kramea, nmstreethran, dsryberg are potential editors based on the topics.
So you need me to place the https://github.com/LBNL-ETA/MSWH/blob/issue5_submit_to_joss/legal.md#license-agreement into a separate file?
Can you tell me why the license must be in a separate file?
the problem is you are adding to the standard license, which we don't allow. It also makes it harder to compare what you have with the standard license.
The open source community in general is good at dealing with standard files in standard locations, and this isn't standard.
Here is the license file as a separate file.
Thanks - but you have modified the 3rd clause from the standard
Sure, no problem, I just like to understand. The modifications are how the license was granted by LBNL and DOE, as the work was performed at LBNL - this is a usual practice and there is nothing I can do to change it. What is not standard in the license? Thank you so much for any clarifications.
I just did a detailed read and the license has the same 3 clauses and provides the same ability to the users.
I'm sorry, now I realize that this is not a BSD 3-clause license but it is almost a Lawrence Berkeley National Labs BSD Variant License (BSD-3-Clause-LBNL) license: https://opensource.org/BSD-3-Clause-LBNL.
The only change that is needed is to remove the extra text at the start of the first line, so that this line starts with "Copyright".
BSD-3-Clause-LBNL is an OSI-approved license, so once you make this small change, it will be fine.
Great, I've pushed the fix as required.
I found having a legal.md file was somehow elegant, rather than 2 files, one for the license and the other for the rest. I can see how this can be hard to parse.
Just as fyi, if you were to write a parser for the license, LBNL first writes the name of the software, so as was written in my initial version:
Multiscale Solar Water Heating (SWH) Copyright (c) 2019,
I see how the https://opensource.org/BSD-3-Clause-LBNL switches the order, so I've aligned the license in the separate file with this one, so:
Copyright (c) 2019 Multiscale Solar Water Heating (MSWH),
Thanks!
I'm sorry to be picky about this, but can you change the first line from
Copyright (c) 2019 Multiscale Solar Water Heating (MSWH), The Regents of the University of California, through Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (subject to receipt of any required approvals from the U.S. Dept. of Energy). All rights reserved.
to
Copyright (c) 2019, The Regents of the University of California, through Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (subject to receipt of any required approvals from the U.S. Dept. of Energy). All rights reserved.
Sure! Just let me know what edits are needed.
Exactly what I wrote in the previous comment :)
It is changed as you instructed.
@whedon check repository
Software report (experimental):
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.84 T=1.88 s (47.4 files/s, 285358.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript 9 4455 20795 17937
Python 47 2661 3658 6567
Jupyter Notebook 6 0 474208 3261
HTML 10 166 268 1247
Markdown 5 105 0 247
TeX 1 14 0 133
reStructuredText 7 57 41 101
DOS Batch 1 8 1 27
CSS 2 5 13 26
make 1 4 6 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 89 7475 498990 29556
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistical information for the repository '2666' was gathered on 2020/09/11.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:
Author Commits Insertions Deletions % of changes
Milica Grahovac 1 3 1 0.01
milicag 19 33221 25358 99.99
Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:
Author Rows Stability Age % in comments
Milica Grahovac 3 100.0 9.4 66.67
milicag 56070 168.8 0.0 40.20
@whedon check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1080/19401493.2013.765506 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.093 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- 10.2172/1140094 may be a valid DOI for title: Laboratory Performance Evaluation of Residential Integrated Heat Pump Water Heaters
INVALID DOIs
- None
@milicag - can you add the missing DOI?
@whedon check references
Checking the BibTeX entries failed with the following error:
Failed to parse BibTeX on value "," (COMMA) [#
@whedon check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1080/19401493.2013.765506 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.093 is OK
- 10.2172/1025650 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
馃憢 @sjpfenninger - you were suggested to edit this by the submitters. Are you willing to do so?
@whedon invite @sjpfenninger as editor
@sjpfenninger has been invited to edit this submission.
Thanks @danielskatz for guidance.
@whedon assign @sjpfenninger as editor
OK, the editor is @sjpfenninger
@brynpickering, @dalonsoa would you be able to review this submission for JOSS?
Hi all, I'm sorry but I cannot do it this time. The topic is great, though! I'll keep an eye on the repo.
@whedon add @brynpickering as reviewer
OK, @brynpickering is now a reviewer
@dalonsoa, thanks and no worries!
@nmstreethran @sevberg Would either of you be able to review this submission to JOSS?
@sjpfenninger Yes, I'm happy to review this submission!
@whedon add @nmstreethran as reviewer
OK, @nmstreethran is now a reviewer
Thanks @nmstreethran !
@whedon start review
OK, I've started the review over in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/2695.
@brynpickering, @nmstreethran thanks for agreeing to review. Let's head over to #2695 for the actual review!