[REVIEW]: diyepw: A Python package for Do-It-Yourself EnergyPlus 1 weather file generation

[whedon]

Submitting author: @amandadsmith (Amanda D. Smith)
Repository: https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/diyepw/
Version: v1.2.1
Editor: @timtroendle
Reviewers: @samuelduchesne, @fneum
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5258122

⚠️ 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/9267f12d29f6f17e6dce4fb7bb87897d"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9267f12d29f6f17e6dce4fb7bb87897d/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9267f12d29f6f17e6dce4fb7bb87897d/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/9267f12d29f6f17e6dce4fb7bb87897d)

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

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

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. 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 @timtroendle 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 ✨

Review checklist for @samuelduchesne

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 (@amandadsmith) 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?

Review checklist for @fneum

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 (@amandadsmith) 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?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @samuelduchesne, @ritwikagarwal 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:

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

2. 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]

PDF failed to compile for issue #3313 with the following error:

 Can't find any papers to compile :-(

[whedon]

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.06 s (554.3 files/s, 42556.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          20            314            594           1114
reStructuredText                 3             65             45            122
Markdown                         6             23              0            119
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
TOML                             1              0              0              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            32            414            647           1396
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository 'e59152558c545a9968fdc443' was
gathered on 2021/05/26.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Amanda Smith                     7           738              8            2.06
Benjamin Stürmer               157          4175           3004           19.85
travis                           8         14157          14091           78.09

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
Benjamin Stürmer           1944           46.6          3.7               15.33
travis                       78            0.6          1.1               34.62

[timtroendle]

@whedon generate pdf from branch joss-paper

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss-paper. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

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

[timtroendle]

@samuelduchesne, @ritwikagarwal, we are still in reduced service mode in which we ask reviewers to finish their reviews within six weeks. I will add an automatic reminder for each of you to indicate when half of that time has elapsed.

Of course it's great if you can finish your review earlier than that.

[timtroendle]

@whedon remind @samuelduchesne in three weeks

[whedon]

Reminder set for @samuelduchesne in three weeks

[timtroendle]

@whedon remind @ritwikagarwal in three weeks

[whedon]

Reminder set for @ritwikagarwal in three weeks

[whedon]

👋 @samuelduchesne, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[whedon]

👋 @ritwikagarwal, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[samuelduchesne]

Hi @amandadsmith, just had a chance to go trough this. A tool to automatically generate weather files from NOAA data is very useful! I must say that this submission is of very good quality and it shows the care you and your team put to provide an open-source tool to the building energy modeling community.

I the spirit of making the tool even better I have some recommendations that I invite your to consider even if they would not block the acceptance of this submission.

Continuous Integration

Although the package has automated testing, it is not part of a CI tool such as GitHub Actions, Travis CI or Circle CI. Setting up continuous integration with any of these services is very easy and will save you a lot of time (and headaches) when publishing new releases of the tool in the future. You could even test different platforms (linux, windows and mac simultaneously). My recommendation: get started right away with Github Actions.

Command Line Interface

I do not agree with issue #31! Having 2 separate repositories, one for your python API and another for your CLI interface is cumbersome and some users will hate your for it. You could rather include all the cli functions as an actual shell program using Click. Then users simply have to pip install diyepw and in the same shell, they can run diyepw analyze_noaa_data --help to get something similar to this:

$ dryepw analyze_noaa_data --help
Usage: analyze_noaa_data [OPTIONS]

  Simple program that analyzes..

Options:
  --option_1 INTEGER 
  --option_2 TEXT
  --option_3

In conclusion, I recommend the publication of this submission as is, but I strongly recommend that the authors connect the repo with a CI tool and that they merge the scripts within the same repository and implement a CLI using click.

[amandadsmith]

Hi @samuelduchesne, we greatly appreciate your thoughtful review! These suggestions are valuable and we plan to implement. Thanks for pointing out the Click package.

[whedon]

👋 @ritwikagarwal, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[timtroendle]

Hello @ritwikagarwal, we are slowly approaching the end of the six-week review period. Can you let us know where you stand with your review?

[timtroendle]

Hi @amandadsmith, to keep you up to date: I am currently looking for a second reviewer and a second review of your submission. I will update you as soon as I made progress in my search.

[amandadsmith]

Thank you for your efforts @timtroendle

[timtroendle]

Apologies for the slow process, @amandadsmith . It's a bit difficult to find a replacement reviewer at this point, as many people are about to leave or have left into their summer breaks. I found a few people that would like to review this submission but can do so only in a few days time. I will assign one of them as soon as they are ready. Please bear with us.

[amandadsmith]

I understand @timtroendle. It's a hard time to reach academics. Thanks for keeping us apprised of what's going on.

[timtroendle]

@whedon remove @ritwikagarwal as reviewer

[whedon]

PDF failed to compile for issue #3313 with the following error:

 Can't find any papers to compile :-(

[timtroendle]

@whedon recommend-accept from branch joss-paper

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.softx.2019.100299 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.244 is OK
- 10.1175/2011BAMS3015.1 is OK
- 10.5334/jors.148 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4299126 is OK
-  10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a  is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5203279 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

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

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#2547

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#2547, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true from branch joss-paper 

[kyleniemeyer]

Hi @amandadsmith, I'm the AEIC on duty this week, doing some final checks before accepting. I noticed that the EnergyPlus reference has some extra curly brackets around the title—can you remove those? Everything else looks good!

[amandadsmith]

Hi @kyleniemeyer, these extra curly brackets have been removed. Thank you!

[kyleniemeyer]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

PDF failed to compile for issue #3313 with the following error:

 Can't find any papers to compile :-(

[kyleniemeyer]

@whedon generate pdf from branch joss-paper

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch joss-paper. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

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

[kyleniemeyer]

@whedon accept deposit=true from branch joss-paper

[whedon]

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

[whedon]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

[whedon]

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

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.03313 joss-papers#2556
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03313
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[kyleniemeyer]

Congratulations @amandadsmith on your article's publication in JOSS!

Many thanks to @samuelduchesne and @fneum for reviewing this submission, and @timtroendle for editing.

[whedon]

🎉🎉🎉 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.03313/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03313)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03313">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03313/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03313/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03313

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