Submit erddapy for review

[ocefpaf]

Submitting Author: Filipe Fernandes (@ocefpaf)
Repository Link: https://github.com/ioos/erddapy
Version submitted: v0.4.0
Editor: @lwasser
Reviewer 1: @jlpalomino @choldgraf
Reviewer 2: @npch
Archive: TBD
Version accepted: TBD

---

• Paste the full DESCRIPTION file inside a code block below:

erddapy is a python wrapper to ERDDAP's RESTful web services to create valid ERDDAP URLs for data requests, searches, metadata queries, etc.

Scope

• Please indicate which category or categories this package falls under:
  • Data retrieval
  • Data extraction
  • Data munging
  • Data deposition
  • Reproducibility
  • Geospatial
  • Education
  • Data visualization*

* Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package. For more info, see this section of our guidebook.

• Explain how the and why the package falls under these categories (briefly, 1-2 sentences):

erddapy is a tool to construct URLs for retrieving data from ERDDAP servers.

• Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?

The target audience is anyone who needs to access that in ERDDAP servers, they are usually Met/Ocean scientists who need near-real time access to data. erddapy does not have a direct scientific application b/c that varies based on the data available. It is essentially a retrieval tool. However, ERDDAP servers are essentially scientific data servers, erddapy's goal is to make access to that data easier.

• Are there other Python packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ?

Not to my knowledge.

• If you made a pre-submission enquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted:

Technical checks

For details about the pyOpenSci packaging requirements, see our packaging guide. 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 an OSI approved license
• contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
• includes documentation with examples for all functions.
• contains a vignette notebook with examples of its essential functions and uses.
• has a test suite.
• has continuous integration, such as Travis CI, AppVeyor, CircleCI, and/or others.

Publication options

• Do you wish to automatically submit to the Journal of Open Source Software? If so:

JOSS Options

• The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements. Be aware that completing the pyOpenSci review process does not guarantee acceptance to JOSS. Be sure to read their submission requirements (linked above) if you are interested in submitting to JOSS.
• The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with a high-level description in the package root or in inst/.
• The package is deposited in a long-term repository with the DOI:

Note: Do not submit your package separately to JOSS

Code of conduct

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

[lwasser]

@ocefpaf my apologies for missing this submission almost 2 weeks ago! in our meeting tomorrow, we will discuss who the reviewers will be for this submission. I will serve as the editor for it but also can review if need be!!

OPEN CALL: Does anyone want to review this submission?
Also just to confirm, Filipe, you are NOT interested in JOSS at this point in time?

[ocefpaf]

@ocefpaf my apologies for missing this submission almost 2 weeks ago! in our meeting tomorrow, we will discuss who the reviewers will be for this submission. I will serve as the editor for it but also can review if need be!!

No problem. This is a test submission after all 😄

BTW, one thing that comes to mind would be to set up a bot, similar to JOSS' bot, so the person submitting the package can get some communication as soon as s/he submits the PR. It can be something like: "Thanks for submitting, please read this and that while you wait for a review..."

OPEN CALL: Does anyone want to review this submission?

We could have a review team to ping here.
Something like @pyOpenSci/reviewers.

Also just to confirm, Filipe, you are NOT interested in JOSS at this point in time?

Not at this moment.

PS: I won't be able to make it to tomorrow's meeting.
I'm at AnacondaCon in case someone from the pyOpenSci team is here and wants to meet.

[lwasser]

@ocefpaf these are all great suggestions!! we will look into Joss' Bot. @kysolvik can you kindly look into what they have setup to provide an automated response??

I also really like the idea of having a set of reviewers that could be pinged. We might need to think that through given in the future we could have many submissions at a time. BUT let's keep talking as these are excellent suggestions.

enjoy the conference, Filipe!! We will catch you via zoom at the next meeting but i'm sure we will chat online before then.

[kysolvik]

JOSS has an excellent bot named Whedon: https://github.com/openjournals/whedon. It definitely seems to be pretty helpful. We could look into creating something similar!

In the mean time, it looks like rOpenSci just has the current editor in chief watch issues in their software-review repo and assign them as they come up. This could be an option until we're able to set up a bot.

[lwasser]

woo hoo! ok so i am going to serve as the editor for this submission. As a part of this process, i am reviewing the dev_guide closely and making edits / changes to it. pr soon to come. Below are the checks that i'm looking for

Editor checks:

• Fit: The package meets criteria for fit and overlap.
  DATA ACCESS (API WRAPPER - JOSS WOULD NOT REVIEW THIS i think??)
• Automated tests: Package has a testing suite and is tested via Travis-CI or another CI service.
  TRAVIS is being used
• License: The package has an OSI accepted license
  BSD-3
• Repository: The repository link resolves correctly
• Archive (JOSS only, may be post-review): The repository DOI resolves correctly
• Version (JOSS only, may be post-review): Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?

---

Editor comments

This package is ready for review! @choldgraf @jlpalomino @npch are you still willing to serve as reviewers? Please note that a review could be technical in nature (looking at tests, code, etc etc) or could focus more on usability and documentation. i think ideally we'd hit both via all of our reviewers.

If you are still able to review, please let me know what time frame works for you? I was going to suggest 2-3 weeks. Does that sound reasonable? if so i'll select a date.

Update: following rOpenSci i am supposed to give you 3 weeks to review this package!! still going through the docs carefully. Does May 1 work for you guys as a deadline?

---

Reviewers: @choldgraf @jlpalomino @npch
Due date: 1 May 2019

[choldgraf]

Sounds reasonable to me - @jlpalomino how would you like to handle the joint review? Should we prepare it together then submit at once? Or we can just review independently and have a channel of communication somewhere? I'm happy w/ whatever

[jlpalomino]

@choldgraf I'd like to check out the review process docs on my own first, but then it would be great to prepare and submit one together. I'll send you an email, so we can find a time that works well. Thanks!

[lwasser]

thank you @jlpalomino @choldgraf as you go through the review process, will you please submit PR's to update docs as you find issues? thank you in advance!!!

[npch]

@lwasser - yes, still happy to review this.

[lwasser]

wonderful. thank you @npch !! i'll add you as a formal reviewer now! All please be sure to use the reviewer template when you submit your review!!

[choldgraf]

FYI @jlpalomino and I are planning to submit a review early the week after next (I'm outta town for a few days this/next week)