[REVIEW]: elwaspatid: A Python package to compute space-time diagrams for the propagation of elastic waves in 1D rods

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @dbrizard (Denis Brizard)
Repository: https://github.com/dbrizard/elwaspatid
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v2.0.2
Editor: @diehlpk
Reviewers: @obsmax, @MargeritPierre
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.6777968

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0ed2bb9a2a6089cdb974876970ef3778"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0ed2bb9a2a6089cdb974876970ef3778/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0ed2bb9a2a6089cdb974876970ef3778/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0ed2bb9a2a6089cdb974876970ef3778)

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

@obsmax & @erasmuss, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

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

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @obsmax

📝 Checklist for @MargeritPierre

[editorialbot]

Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.14 s (588.1 files/s, 209481.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript                       9           2289           2314           8441
HTML                            16            708             12           3672
Python                          13           1049           1766           2875
CSS                              8            346             63           1686
reStructuredText                16           1454           1340            485
Markdown                         3             83              0            212
TeX                              6             10              0            140
Jupyter Notebook                 7              0           1136             55
YAML                             2              7             24             28
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
JSON                             1              0              0             15
make                             1              6              7             12
TOML                             1              0              0              6
SVG                              1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            85           5960           6663          17654
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 781

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/BF00411743 is OK
- 10.1016/0016-0032(49)90143-X is OK
- 10.1016/0734-743X(93)90084-K is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[obsmax]

Review checklist for @obsmax

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/dbrizard/elwaspatid?
• 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 (@dbrizard) 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?

[obsmax]

The LICENCE file contains the text of the GNU-GPL 3.0 licence but the setup.cfg file indicates that the licence is a "MIT License".

[obsmax]

• Installation
  The installation instructions recommend using pip install elwaspatid but this command do not bring the examples folder that is required to test the installation. To run the examples, the user is invited to get it from github or from the doc.
  The issue is that, the user might be trying to run examples corresponding to a version of the program that do not match with the version gathered and installed from pypi.
  A simple fix would be to add a setup.py file to the package so that users could install the package locally directly from the source directory using pip install -e . after git clone.
  Users might then be guided to PyPi for applications only or to the Github sources if they want to run the examples and learn how to use it.

[obsmax]

• Version tag : I'm not sure that the version tag v2.0.1 complies with the PEP440 rule, shouldn't it be 2.0.1 ?