Test submission

[xuanxu]

Submitting Author: JB (@xuanxu)
Repository: https://github.com/andr1976/HydDown
repourl: https://github.com/hypertidy/geodist
Version submitted: v0.1

Editor: @xuanxu
Reviewers: @gemgon, @xuanxu
Archive: TBD
Version accepted: TBD

---

Scope

• Please indicate which category or categories this package falls under: (Please check an appropriate box below. If you are unsure, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry.):

  • data retrieval
  • scientific software wrappers
  • field and lab reproducibility tools
  • geospatial data
  • text analysis

Technical checks

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.
This package:

• does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
• has a CRAN and OSI accepted license.
• contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
• includes documentation.
• has a test suite.
• has continuous integration.

Code of conduct

• I agree to abide by our Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package should it be accepted.

[botsci]

Welcome xuanxu, thanks for opening this issue 🎉

Thanks for sending your software to aliadalabs/sunnydale

[xuanxu]

@botsci help

[botsci]

Hello @xuanxu, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@botsci help

# Show our community Code of Conduct and Guidelines
@botsci code of conduct

# List all current topic editors
@botsci list editors

# Assign a user as the reviewer N of this submission (where N=1,2...)
@botsci assign @username as reviewer 2

# Remove the user assigned as reviewer N of this submission (where N=1,2...)
@botsci remove reviewer 2

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@botsci add @username to reviewers

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@botsci remove @username from reviewers

# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@botsci assign @username as editor

# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@botsci remove editor

# Send an invitation to a user to collaborate in the review
@botsci invite @username

# Add a user to this issue's assignees list
@botsci add assignee: @username

# Remove a user from this issue's assignees list
@botsci remove assignee: @username

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
# Optionally, it can be run on a non-default branch 
@botsci check references
@botsci check references from custom-branch-name

# Perform checks on the repository
# Optionally, it can be run on a non-default branch 
@botsci check repository
@botsci check repository from custom-branch-name

# Set a value for version
@botsci set v1.0.0 as version

# Set a value for archive
@botsci set 10.21105/joss.12345 as archive

# Label issue with: reviewed, recommend publication, pending publication. Remove labels: ongoing, pending review
@botsci review successful

# Label issue with: recommend rejection
@botsci review failed

# Close the issue
@botsci reject

# Reports on the quality of the code
@botsci analyze code

# Random facts about cats
@botsci tell me something about cats

# Add review checklist for a user
@botsci add checklist for @username

# Remove the checklist for a user
@botsci remove checklist for @username

# Generates the pdf paper
@botsci compile pdf

# Prepares everything for acceptance
@botsci recommend accept

[xuanxu]

@botsci recommend accept

[botsci]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[botsci]

⚠️ An error happened.

[botsci]

⚠️ An error happened.

[botsci]

⚠️ An error happened.

[botsci]

⚠️ An error happened.

[botsci]

⚠️ An error happened.

[xuanxu]

@botsci recommend accept

[botsci]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[botsci]

👋 @xuanxu, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.\n\n Check final proof 👉 https://github.com/aliadalabs/papers-test/pull/4\n\nIf the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in aliadalabs/papers-test#4, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command

[botsci]

👋 @xuanxu, this paper is ready to be accepted and published. \n\nCheck final proof 👉 aliadalabs/papers-test#5 \n\nIf the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in aliadalabs/papers-test#5, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command

[botsci]

👋 @xuanxu, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉 aliadalabs/papers-test#6

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in aliadalabs/papers-test#6, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command

[botsci]

👋 @xuanxu, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉 aliadalabs/papers-test#7

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in aliadalabs/papers-test#7, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command

[botsci]

👋 @xuanxu, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.\n\n Check final proof 👉 https://github.com/aliadalabs/papers-test/pull/8\n\nIf the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in aliadalabs/papers-test#8, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command

[botsci]

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in aliadalabs/papers-test#9, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command

[botsci]

👋 @xuanxu, this paper is ready to be accepted and published. --body Check final proof 👉 aliadalabs/papers-test#10 --body If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in aliadalabs/papers-test#10, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command

[botsci]

👋 @xuanxu, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.\n\nCheck final proof 👉 aliadalabs/papers-test#12 \n\nIf the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in aliadalabs/papers-test#12, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command

[botsci]

👋 @xuanxu, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉 aliadalabs/papers-test#13

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in aliadalabs/papers-test#13, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @botsci publish paper

[xuanxu]

• does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
• has a CRAN and OSI accepted license.
• contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
• includes documentation.
• has a test suite.
• has continuous integration.

[xuanxu]

@botsci help

[botsci]

@gemgon added to the reviewers list!

[gemgon]

Review checklist for @gemgon

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 https://github.com/andr1976/HydDown?
• 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 (@xuanxu) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

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: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states 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?

[xuanxu]

@botsci recommend accept

[botsci]

⚠️ An error happened.

[botsci]

👋 @xuanxu, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉 aliadalabs/papers-test#15

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in aliadalabs/papers-test#15, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @botsci publish paper

[xuanxu]

@botsci help

[botsci]

Hello @xuanxu, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# Add a review's info to the ROpenSci logs
@botsci submit review <REVIEW_URL> time <REVIEW_HOURS(ex. 2/10.5/NA)>

# List all available commands
@botsci help

# Show our Code of Conduct
@botsci code of conduct

# Switch to "seeking reviewers"
@botsci seeking reviewers

# Approves a package. This command will close the issue.
@botsci approve package-name

# Mint package as [bronze/silver/gold]
@botsci mint silver

# Add a user to this issue's reviewers list
@botsci add xxxxx to reviewers

# Remove a user from the reviewers list
@botsci remove xxxxx from reviewers

# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@botsci assign @username as editor

# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@botsci remove editor

# Close the issue
@botsci out of scope

# Various package checks
@botsci check package

[xuanxu]

@botsci submit review whatever time 7

[botsci]

Error: That url is invalid

[xuanxu]

@botsci submit review #15 (comment) time 7

[botsci]

Couldn't find entry for gemgon in the reviews log

[xuanxu]

@botsci add @xuanxu to reviewers

[botsci]

Can't assign reviewer because there is no editor assigned for this submission yet

[xuanxu]

@botsci add @xuanxu to reviewers

[botsci]

Can't assign reviewer because there is no editor assigned for this submission yet

[xuanxu]

@botsci add @xuanxu to reviewers

[botsci]

@xuanxu added to the reviewers list. Review due date is 2021-11-23. Thanks @xuanxu for accepting to review!

[botsci]

@xuanxu: If you haven't done so, please fill this form for us to update our reviewers records.

[xuanxu]

@botsci submit review #15 (comment) time 22.2

[xuanxu]

@botsci submit review #15 (comment) time 22.2

[botsci]

Logged review for xuanxu (hours: 22.2)

[botsci]

⚠️ Couldn't generate the pdf. An error happened.

[botsci]

⚠️ Couldn't generate the pdf. An error happened.

[botsci]

⚠️ Couldn't generate the pdf. An error happened.

[botsci]

⚠️ Couldn't generate the pdf. An error happened.

[xuanxu]

@botsci compile pdf

[xuanxu]

@botsci recommend accept

[botsci]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@botsci help

[xuanxu]

@botsci check references