[REVIEW]: IPART: A Python Package for Image-Processing based Atmospheric River Tracking #2407

whedon · 2020-06-29T21:27:22Z

Submitting author: @Xunius (Guangzhi XU)
Repository: https://github.com/ihesp/IPART
Version: v3.0.8
Editor: @kbarnhart
Reviewer: @sadielbartholomew, @rabernat
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4164826

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

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.

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e5e7c126fe26a82ab717e7d2ce70a1e1"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e5e7c126fe26a82ab717e7d2ce70a1e1/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e5e7c126fe26a82ab717e7d2ce70a1e1/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e5e7c126fe26a82ab717e7d2ce70a1e1)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@sadielbartholomew & @rabernat, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @kbarnhart know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next six weeks ✨

Review checklist for @sadielbartholomew

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@Xunius) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Review checklist for @rabernat

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@Xunius) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

whedon · 2020-06-29T21:27:25Z

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @sadielbartholomew, @rabernat it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉.

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

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.

⭐ Important ⭐

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

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

whedon · 2020-06-29T21:27:37Z

PDF failed to compile for issue #2407 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/2407 (Errno::ENOENT) from /app/vendor/ruby-2.4.4/lib/ruby/2.4.0/find.rb:43:in collect!'
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-446a0298a33b/lib/whedon/processor.rb:61:in find_paper_paths'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-446a0298a33b/bin/whedon:50:in prepare' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in run'
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:in dispatch'
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-446a0298a33b/bin/whedon:119:in <top (required)>'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in load' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in

'

kbarnhart · 2020-06-29T21:30:08Z

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2020-06-29T21:30:21Z

PDF failed to compile for issue #2407 with the following error:

Can't find any papers to compile :-(

kbarnhart · 2020-06-29T21:36:55Z

@arfon / @openjournals/joss-eics could you help me ensure the repository is linked correctly to this review issue. Issues may have cropped up because the authors changed the title of the submission and the repository address during the pre-review stage (#2197).

I can edit the title/comments on this thread... @whedon could find the paper in the review issue (e.g., here)

repo: https://github.com/ihesp/IPART
title: "IPART: A Python Package for Image-Processing based Atmospheric River Tracking"

thanks!

danielskatz · 2020-06-29T21:47:47Z

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2020-06-29T21:47:59Z

PDF failed to compile for issue #2407 with the following error:

Can't find any papers to compile :-(

danielskatz · 2020-06-29T21:48:35Z

👋 @openjournals/dev - can you take a look at this?

xuanxu · 2020-06-29T21:59:22Z

@whedon generate pdf

whedon · 2020-06-29T21:59:56Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

xuanxu · 2020-06-29T22:01:15Z

It was the bold markup in the repo link. It was confusing for Whedon. I removed it and now it works.

kbarnhart · 2020-06-29T23:06:17Z

@xuanxu thank you! Pretty confident that was my fault.

Xunius · 2020-07-23T00:58:47Z

@kbarnhart Just a quick question: I guess I should not update the master branch during the review stage, should I?

kbarnhart · 2020-07-23T14:28:16Z

@Xunius answer probably depends on what sort of changes you are making. I would not recommend totally restructuring the package. But if you have more moderate changes (adding a feature, updating the documentation, refactoring something internal), I don't see a reason why those sorts of changes would cause a problem. If you make a change that substantially modifies the dependencies such that a reviewer would need to re-create their compute environment used to test out and review IPART, that would probably not be advisable.

Using an issue to describe why changes were made, and then a Pull Request that bring those changes into master will also make it clear what changes were made and why.

kbarnhart · 2020-07-27T21:30:25Z

@sadielbartholomew and @rabernat I wanted to check in with a friendly reminder that we are asking reviewers to complete their reviews within 6 weeks (in about 2 weeks). Please let me know how I can assist throughout the JOSS review process.

sadielbartholomew · 2020-07-28T23:10:20Z

Noted, thanks @kbarnhart. As this stage I do not feel I need assistance, I have simply not had much time in recent weeks to move on & finish my review. I plan, and will strive, to have my review completed by the end of this week i.e. the end of July.

rabernat · 2020-07-29T11:59:44Z

Thanks for the reminder. Indeed this had fallen off my radar. I will hopefully be able to get to it today.

Xunius · 2020-07-29T14:28:57Z

@kbarnhart I got another comment regarding installation. I'd like to propose a merge of the netcdf4 branch to master, which would replace the cdat dependency with netcdf4. I already got some user feedbacks complaining about the cdat dependency, some about it not working well in google colab, some about it not supported in windows. I think this proposed change would make packaging to pip or conda-forge easier. I've already implemented the changes mentioned in the other comment API documentation: undocumented parameters & methods, so we are not loosing the new corrections.

rabernat · 2020-07-29T14:36:12Z

I am quite biased here, but as long as you are considering revamping your I/O routines, I would suggest you to look at xarray.

The requirement to operate on files period is a big limitation of this tool. What if the user's data are not in netCDF format? Other formats, like GRIB or Zarr, are common. (For example, there are nearly 1PB of CMIP6 data in Google Cloud in Zarr format.) Or if the user's data are not in files at all, but rather computed on the fly from some other source?

If you packages routines were able to accept xarray Dataset objects, you could effectively forget about dealing with files. Let the user open the files and pass an xarray.Dataset to your tool. This object should contain all raw numpy data, plus any metadata you need to process. This is the approach used by xESMF (a regridding package), and it works very well.

We wrote a little bit about this concept here: http://pangeo.io/packages.html#guidelines-for-new-packages

I want to clarify that I don't think this sort of refactor is required to have your JOSS paper published. It's just an optional suggestion based on lots of experience with this sort of thing.

kbarnhart · 2020-07-29T14:57:10Z

@Xunius I think that changing the dependency makes sense. I had hoped that some of my early feedback in pre-review on installation instructions and packaging would have addressed some of these install issues. This is all to say that I strongly support @rabernat 's comments on ihesp/IPART/issues/5 to follow installation and practicing best practices.

I also favor xarray over netcdf4, though if you have reasons for one dependency over another, that is your decision to make.

Similarly, I've had good success with taking I/O out of the core of a package (e.g., a user is expected to provide a numpy array, or xarray.Dataset) rather than a file. A user can convert many common file formats into these data-structures in one or two lines of code, so I don't think it places an unnecessary burden on users.

Regarding which things are and are not necessary to complete the JOSS process: I think that good packaging definitely is necessary and I would agree with @rabernat that refactoring the I/O is not necessary. You may choose to do it because it makes packaging easier, but that is up to you.

If additional extensive discussion on this point is necessary, I may move the thread to an in-repo issue.

As always, let me know how I can help with questions/clarifications.

kbarnhart · 2020-07-29T14:58:04Z

@sadielbartholomew thanks for the update. All sounds good.

kbarnhart · 2020-11-02T15:51:30Z

@whedon check references

whedon · 2020-11-02T15:52:40Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.5065/D6H70CW6 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.2586088 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
-  10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a  is OK
- 10.7717/peerj.453 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0493(1998)126<0725:APAFMF>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0493(2004)132<1721:SACAOO>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.3389/feart.2014.00002 is OK
- 10.1175/BAMS-84-9-1205 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0434(2002)017<1152:ITDATO>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0216.1 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01386390 is OK
- 10.1016/S0146-664X(72)80017-0 is OK
- 10.1109/TPAMI.1986.4767851 is OK
- 10.1175/2010MWR3596.1 is OK
- 10.1002/2015JD024257 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00546.x is OK
- 10.1175/JHM-D-13-02.1 is OK
- 10.1002/asl.392 is OK
- 10.1029/2012JD018027 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00212.1 is OK
- 10.1175/2007JHM855.1 is OK
- 10.1175/MWR-D-11-00126.1 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0655.1 is OK
- 10.1002/2014GL060299 is OK
- 10.1002/2014GL060881 is OK
- 10.1109/TGRS.2012.2211024 is OK
- 10.1002/qj.828 is OK
- 10.1175/2009MWR3193.1 is OK
- 10.1109/83.217222 is OK
- 10.1175/MWR-D-13-00168.1 is OK
- 10.1175/MWR-D-14-00288.1 is OK
- 10.1175/MWR-D-15-0279.1 is OK
- 10.1002/2017gl075495 is OK
- 10.1002/qj.49712354211 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00567.1 is OK
- 10.1109/TSMC.1979.4310076 is OK
- 10.7717/peerj.453 is OK
- 10.1029/2019JD031205 is OK
- 10.1029/2018JD029180 is OK
- 10.1029/2019JD031218 is OK
- 10.1029/2019JD030936 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-11-2455-2018 is OK
- 10.3390/atmos11060628 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-13-4639-2020 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

kbarnhart · 2020-11-02T15:56:04Z

@whedon set v3.0.8 as version

whedon · 2020-11-02T15:56:07Z

OK. v3.0.8 is the version.

kbarnhart · 2020-11-02T15:56:22Z

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.4164826 as archive

whedon · 2020-11-02T15:56:26Z

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.4164826 is the archive.

kbarnhart · 2020-11-02T15:56:52Z

@whedon accept

whedon · 2020-11-02T15:56:56Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon · 2020-11-02T15:57:41Z

👋 @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#1890

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#1890, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

kbarnhart · 2020-11-02T15:58:03Z

@Xunius I've now recommended that this submission be accepted. The JOSS handling editor in chief will manage final publication.

I agree with the reviewers that the package is much improved since submission. Congratulations on all of your hard work.

whedon · 2020-11-02T15:58:03Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.5065/D6H70CW6 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.2586088 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
-  10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a  is OK
- 10.7717/peerj.453 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0493(1998)126<0725:APAFMF>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0493(2004)132<1721:SACAOO>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.3389/feart.2014.00002 is OK
- 10.1175/BAMS-84-9-1205 is OK
- 10.1175/1520-0434(2002)017<1152:ITDATO>2.0.CO;2 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0216.1 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01386390 is OK
- 10.1016/S0146-664X(72)80017-0 is OK
- 10.1109/TPAMI.1986.4767851 is OK
- 10.1175/2010MWR3596.1 is OK
- 10.1002/2015JD024257 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00546.x is OK
- 10.1175/JHM-D-13-02.1 is OK
- 10.1002/asl.392 is OK
- 10.1029/2012JD018027 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00212.1 is OK
- 10.1175/2007JHM855.1 is OK
- 10.1175/MWR-D-11-00126.1 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0655.1 is OK
- 10.1002/2014GL060299 is OK
- 10.1002/2014GL060881 is OK
- 10.1109/TGRS.2012.2211024 is OK
- 10.1002/qj.828 is OK
- 10.1175/2009MWR3193.1 is OK
- 10.1109/83.217222 is OK
- 10.1175/MWR-D-13-00168.1 is OK
- 10.1175/MWR-D-14-00288.1 is OK
- 10.1175/MWR-D-15-0279.1 is OK
- 10.1002/2017gl075495 is OK
- 10.1002/qj.49712354211 is OK
- 10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00567.1 is OK
- 10.1109/TSMC.1979.4310076 is OK
- 10.7717/peerj.453 is OK
- 10.1029/2019JD031205 is OK
- 10.1029/2018JD029180 is OK
- 10.1029/2019JD031218 is OK
- 10.1029/2019JD030936 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-11-2455-2018 is OK
- 10.3390/atmos11060628 is OK
- 10.5194/gmd-13-4639-2020 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2020-11-05T21:55:34Z

Thanks @kbarnhart. I reviewed the paper and all looks good.

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman · 2020-11-05T21:55:40Z

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon · 2020-11-05T21:55:44Z

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

whedon · 2020-11-05T21:56:43Z

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon · 2020-11-05T21:56:43Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.02407 joss-papers#1896
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02407
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

Xunius · 2020-11-06T01:28:25Z

@kbarnhart @rabernat @sadielbartholomew Before this gets closed, I'd like to thank all of you for your help in improving this little project. I learned a lot during the process.
I assume I can now add the DOI to the README file of the repo?

whedon · 2020-11-06T08:35:34Z

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02407/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02407)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02407">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02407/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02407/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02407

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

arfon · 2020-11-06T08:36:07Z

@Xunius - see Whedon's guidance above on how to add the DOI to your readme ☝️.

@sadielbartholomew, @rabernat - many thanks for your reviews here and to @kbarnhart for editing this submission.

@Xunius - your paper is now accepted into JOSS ⚡🚀💥

whedon · 2020-11-06T08:37:36Z

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02407/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02407)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02407">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02407/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02407/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02407

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

whedon added the review label Jun 29, 2020

whedon assigned kbarnhart Jun 29, 2020

whedon mentioned this issue Jun 29, 2020

[PRE REVIEW]: IPART: A Python Package for Image-Processing based Atmospheric River Tracking #2197

Closed

kbarnhart changed the title ~~[REVIEW]: AR tracker: A Python package for detecting and tracking atmospheric rivers using image-processing~~ [REVIEW]: IPART: A Python Package for Image-Processing based Atmospheric River Tracking Jun 29, 2020

whedon assigned rabernat and sadielbartholomew Jun 30, 2020

This was referenced Jul 23, 2020

API documentation: undocumented parameters & methods ihesp/IPART#3

Closed

Corrections to the installation instructions in docs & README ihesp/IPART#4

Merged

rabernat mentioned this issue Jul 29, 2020

Installation documentation and issues ihesp/IPART#5

Closed

whedon added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Nov 2, 2020

whedon added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Nov 5, 2020

arfon closed this as completed Nov 6, 2020

arfon reopened this Nov 6, 2020

arfon closed this as completed Nov 6, 2020

editorialbot mentioned this issue Oct 2, 2023

[PRE REVIEW]: Reservoir Assessment Tool (RAT): A Python Package for monitoring the dynamic state of reservoirs and analyzing dam operations #5917

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Oct 19, 2023

[PRE REVIEW]: RainFA, a Jupyter Notebooks package for regional frequency analysis of rainfall data series #5963

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Jan 30, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: BoARIO: A Python package implementing the ARIO indirect economic cost model #6307

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Sep 25, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: CycloPhaser: A Python Package for Detecting Extratropical Cyclone Life Cycles #7280

Closed

[REVIEW]: IPART: A Python Package for Image-Processing based Atmospheric River Tracking #2407

[REVIEW]: IPART: A Python Package for Image-Processing based Atmospheric River Tracking #2407

Comments

whedon commented Jun 29, 2020 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Review checklist for @sadielbartholomew

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @rabernat

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

whedon commented Jun 29, 2020

whedon commented Jun 29, 2020

kbarnhart commented Jun 29, 2020

whedon commented Jun 29, 2020

kbarnhart commented Jun 29, 2020

danielskatz commented Jun 29, 2020

whedon commented Jun 29, 2020

danielskatz commented Jun 29, 2020

xuanxu commented Jun 29, 2020

whedon commented Jun 29, 2020

xuanxu commented Jun 29, 2020

kbarnhart commented Jun 29, 2020

Xunius commented Jul 23, 2020

kbarnhart commented Jul 23, 2020

kbarnhart commented Jul 27, 2020

sadielbartholomew commented Jul 28, 2020

rabernat commented Jul 29, 2020

Xunius commented Jul 29, 2020

rabernat commented Jul 29, 2020 • edited Loading

kbarnhart commented Jul 29, 2020

kbarnhart commented Jul 29, 2020

kbarnhart commented Nov 2, 2020

whedon commented Nov 2, 2020

kbarnhart commented Nov 2, 2020

whedon commented Nov 2, 2020

kbarnhart commented Nov 2, 2020

whedon commented Nov 2, 2020

kbarnhart commented Nov 2, 2020

whedon commented Nov 2, 2020

whedon commented Nov 2, 2020

kbarnhart commented Nov 2, 2020

whedon commented Nov 2, 2020

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Nov 5, 2020

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented Nov 5, 2020

whedon commented Nov 5, 2020

whedon commented Nov 5, 2020

whedon commented Nov 5, 2020

Xunius commented Nov 6, 2020 • edited Loading

whedon commented Nov 6, 2020

arfon commented Nov 6, 2020 • edited Loading

whedon commented Nov 6, 2020

whedon commented Jun 29, 2020 •

edited

Loading

rabernat commented Jul 29, 2020 •

edited

Loading

Xunius commented Nov 6, 2020 •

edited

Loading

arfon commented Nov 6, 2020 •

edited

Loading