-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Plenoptic #150
Comments
Hi @billbrod, thank you for your detailed submission. Just letting you know we are working on getting the review started. @sneakers-the-rat will be the editor and they are going to do the initial checks. We're still looking for one reviewer (the other one is me 🙂 -- sorry @sneakers-the-rat for stealing your thunder 😝 ) |
Editor response to review:Editor comments👋 Hi @NickleDave and @DanielaPamplona Thank you for volunteering to review for pyOpenSci! Please fill out our pre-review surveyBefore beginning your review, please fill out our pre-review survey. This helps us improve all aspects of our review and better understand our community. No personal data will be shared from this survey - it will only be used in an aggregated format by our Executive Director to improve our processes and programs.
The following resources will help you complete your review:
Please get in touch with any questions or concerns! Your review is due: Friday, January 5th, 2024Reviewers: @NickleDave and @DanielaPamplona |
We have located reviewers! Thank you @NickleDave and @DanielaPamplona for your time, and looking forward to digging into this package with you all! Please see the above post with links to the reviewer's guide and next steps. The next step will be to copy the review checklist template as a comment here, and as you work through the checklist the authors have indicated it is ok to raise issues and make pull requests with problems and questions as they arise. Since github issues don't have threading, we will use issues raised in the repo as "threads" to keep discussion orderly :). When you raise an issue or PR, please link back to this issue so that we can track issues raised in relationship to the review. It is up to the authors if they would like to tag the issues or name them in any specific way :). The reviewers should feel free to split up different focuses or roles depending on what plays to your strengths - both will complete the basic checklist, but you can decide if you'd rather focus on docs, tests, internal architecture, onboarding, and so on for more detailed focus. The authors can also let the reviewers know if there are any specific areas they would like feedback on or close attention on. Let's shoot for reviews in Friday, January 5th, 2024 - gl;hf to all |
Thanks all, looking forward to this process! While I'm looking forward to all kinds of feedback, I am specifically interested in feedback on the docs, especially the motivation for the included methods and explaining what they can be used for scientifically -- I think that's the weakest (and most important?) part of our documentation right now. Since all the primary authors for the project are from the same lab, we talked a lot offline and have a similar background. |
Hi, |
This is ur friendly neighborhood editor here to say that I hope the authors and reviewers are taking a much deserved break, and to keep a reasonable and humane timeline I am making the call to reset the review window to start Jan 1 - Lets say reviews in January 19th, 2024 Have a lovely rest of the holiday |
Hello dear reviewers @NickleDave @DanielaPamplona - checking in and seeing how things are going, if any guidance is needed or if i can be of any help getting reviews rolling! |
Hi,
Thank you for checking, that is kind of you!
I do have a question...
What is a "vignette" ? I believe I never saw/use it... Or it is implicit in the code...?
Cheers,
Daniela Pamplona
…----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniela Pamplona
Researcher and Lecturer at Université Paris-Est Créteil Val de Marne
https://danielapamplona.github.io/
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2024 at 7:11 PM
From: "Jonny Saunders" ***@***.***>
To: "pyOpenSci/software-submission" ***@***.***>
Cc: "Daniela Pamplona" ***@***.***>, "Mention" ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [pyOpenSci/software-submission] Plenoptic (Issue #150)
Hello dear reviewers @NickleDave @DanielaPamplona - checking in and seeing how things are going, if any guidance is needed or if i can be of any help getting reviews rolling!
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
Completely fair question. That's a term from R (see Vignettes), so more than reasonable to have not seen it before. They are sort of like longer, narrative code examples, but they don't have a strict definition - if it's easier, you can think of them as synonymous with examples. If one were to draw the distinction, an example might look like something you'd find in a docstring like: (show example)def myFunction(arg):
"""
Do a function thing
Args:
arg: The thing we give this function
Example:
To use this function, give it an argument!
>>> arg = 1
>>> print(myFunction(arg))
5
Any argument will do!
>>> arg = 'new argument'
>>> print(myFunction(arg))
5
"""
# TODO: use the argument
return 5 Where a vignette would be a longer-form demonstration of major functionality of the package, often with real-world use that show multiple things working together. From a quick look, everything I see in the |
Got it! Thanks!
…----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniela Pamplona
Researcher and Lecturer at Université Paris-Est Créteil Val de Marne
https://danielapamplona.github.io/
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 5:04 AM
From: "Jonny Saunders" ***@***.***>
To: "pyOpenSci/software-submission" ***@***.***>
Cc: "Daniela Pamplona" ***@***.***>, "Mention" ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [pyOpenSci/software-submission] Plenoptic (Issue #150)
@DanielaPamplona
I do have a question... What is a "vignette" ?
Completely fair question. That's a term from R (see Vignettes), so more than reasonable to have not seen it before. They are sort of like longer, narrative code examples, but they don't have a strict definition - if it's easier, you can think of them as synonymous with examples.
If one were to draw the distinction, an example might look like something you'd find in a docstring like:
def myFunction(arg):
"""
Do a function thing
Args:
arg: The thing we give this function
Example:
To use this function, give it an argument!
>> arg = 1
>> print(myFunction(arg))
5
Any argument will do!
>> arg = 'new argument'
>> print(myFunction(arg))
5
"""
# TODO: use the argument
return 5
Where a vignette would be a longer-form demonstration of major functionality of the package, often with real-world use that show multiple things working together.
From a quick look, everything I see in the examples directory could be called a vignette, but I also don't think you need to split hairs too-too finely there :)
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
Thank you for checking in @sneakers-the-rat and keeping us on track -- no questions from me yet! |
Thanks all! I've got a workshop in 2 weeks (for a different software package) that I'm franticly preparing for, so I most likely won't make much progress on these revisions before then. So no rush Daniela! |
Hi, Legend: Package ReviewPlease check off boYes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide
DocumentationThe package includes all the following forms of documentation:
Readme file requirements
The README should include, from top to bottom:
NOTE: If the README has many more badges, you might want to consider using a table for badges: see this example. Such a table should be more wide than high. (Note that the a badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)
UsabilityReviewers are encouraged to submit suggestions (or pull requests) that will improve the usability of the package as a whole.
Functionality
For packages also submitting to JOSS
Note: Be sure to check this carefully, as JOSS's submission requirements and scope differ from pyOpenSci's in terms of what types of packages are accepted. The package contains a
Final approval (post-review)
Estimated hours spent reviewing:
|
Thanks Daniela! Like I said, it'll be a bit before i can dedicate time to most of these, but I wanted to try and solve the jupyter issue. However, I can't reproduce the issue and I'm not sure how to fix this -- @NickleDave or @sneakers-the-rat do you have any ideas? |
Thank you so much to our reviewers for the amount of time and care they've given to this package! There are a lot of very helpful suggestions here, and it seems relatively clear to me which of these are review blockers and which are just tips, so I think we have a clear path forward once @billbrod has some time to address things. Please take your time responding to the issues, and also feel free to pop back in here if anything is unclear. I took a look at the jupyter issue and think there are a few possible routes there - specify I'll check back in a few weeks to see how progress is going, thanks again to the reviewers for all their work <3 |
Hi @sneakers-the-rat and @DanielaPamplona, I'm just commenting here for @billbrod that he is on paternity leave, as of last night when his wife went into labor! So I think we will need to put this review "pending maintainer response" while he's out. edit: I put "on hold" but that's the wrong label. Maybe we shouldn't add a label here--I'm just trying to give context for somebody who wants the overview of where reviews are at. Happy to let the actual editor do whatever they think is appropriate edit edit: for context, I needed to message Billy about other stuff related to US-RSE, that's how I found out and told him I would comment here since clearly he's busy with other things |
Thank you for the update :). Congratulations @billbrod and please take the time you need and feel no hurry. We're here to help your work, and that certainly doesn't include rushing you away from your newborn. Best of luck and let us know when you're ready! |
Congratulations! Have fun with the baby! |
Hi all, just an update that I'm back from parental leave and will start working on this again, though my overall capacity is still reduced. |
Ahahah! Been there, no worries!
Get some sleep!
Daniela Pamplona
…----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniela Pamplona
Researcher and Lecturer at Université Paris-Est Créteil Val de Marne
https://danielapamplona.github.io/
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 at 5:29 PM
From: "William F. Broderick" ***@***.***>
To: "pyOpenSci/software-submission" ***@***.***>
Cc: "Daniela Pamplona" ***@***.***>, "Mention" ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [pyOpenSci/software-submission] Plenoptic (Issue #150)
Hi all, just an update that I'm back from parental leave and will start working on this again, though my overall capacity is still reduced.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
Fabulous!!! Hope you and the family are well. Just letting you know im on strike and will not be working until the strike is resolved. Whether someone else picking up the review is crossing a picket line is hard to say because this is volunteer work not for my employer, but I wont be proceeding with editorial duties until the University of California resolves its unfair labor practices with UAW 4811. |
Hi,
I am super proud of your strike and you have my full support.
If someone crosses the picket line, I will not do my part as well.
Stay stong!
Daniela
…----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniela Pamplona
Researcher and Lecturer at Université Paris-Est Créteil Val de Marne
https://danielapamplona.github.io/
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2024 at 10:26 PM
From: "Jonny Saunders" ***@***.***>
To: "pyOpenSci/software-submission" ***@***.***>
Cc: "Daniela Pamplona" ***@***.***>, "Mention" ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [pyOpenSci/software-submission] Plenoptic (Issue #150)
Fabulous!!! Hope you and the family are well. Just letting you know im on strike and will not be working until the strike is resolved. Whether someone else picking up the review is crossing a picket line is hard to say because this is volunteer work not for my employer, but I wont be proceeding with editorial duties until the University of California resolves its unfair labor practices with UAW 4811.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
Good luck with the strike! |
hi colleagues! Wow reading through this review so far and seeing the incredible level of support that you ALL have for each other really warmed my heart ❤️ 💟 in a special way! Thank you all for supporting life changes, new kiddos (congratulations on the little one @billbrod !), political challenges and standing your ground, and life business - all in a single review. ✨ you all are incredible. We at pyOpenSci are dedicated to supporting our community and our volunteer editors like the incredible @sneakers-the-rat . SO we are going to look into finding a second editor to support moving this review forward (even if it's slowly @billbrod given home life responsibilities!! ) so Jonny can focus on the important issues happening on their campus now. Can you all give us a sense of where things are? it looks to me like both reviews are in but @billbrod has some work to do and might be below normal work capacity given more important life responsibilities. I'm just trying to figure out how quickly we want to get a new editor on board! @NickleDave perhaps you can give me a download as it does say the issue is on hold for now. do we want to just pause on this review and check back in a month or two? or should we onboard someone now(ish)? thank you all!! i appreciate you! |
I think we can probably check back in in a month or two -- I'm helping run a workshop in 2 weeks and then I have a presentation at a summer school 2 weeks after that, so all that paired with baby responsibilities means I probably won't be able to focus on the review until the 2nd week or so of July. |
fantastic! thanks @billbrod the scipy meeting is in mid july. how about we check back in at the end of july. this will also give us some time to find an editor to wrap things back up here. @kierisi eventually we will have a bot to notify us in x weeks. but for now - this is the review that we could use a second editor for. Let's plan to check back in on it after scipy which would be mid/ late july -- perhaps the 22nd of july? |
@lwasser sounds good! |
hi hello checking in here - i'm back at work and can continue editing this review, last i recall we were waiting on some responses to issues, correct? |
Yes! That is my impression.
…----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniela Pamplona
Researcher and Lecturer at Université Paris-Est Créteil Val de Marne
https://danielapamplona.github.io/
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 at 10:28 PM
From: "Jonny Saunders" ***@***.***>
To: "pyOpenSci/software-submission" ***@***.***>
Cc: "Daniela Pamplona" ***@***.***>, "Mention" ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [pyOpenSci/software-submission] Plenoptic (Issue #150)
hi hello checking in here - i'm back at work and can continue editing this review, last i recall we were waiting on some responses to issues, correct?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
I have noticed @billbrod still working on issues -- like getting a version on conda-forge 🚀. Looks like we're down to maybe one pyOS-related issue. So yes I think we are just waiting for him to finish that up and then reply with "here's how I addressed the reviews" |
Hi, yes, I'm still working through the issues and reviews. I'll ping the reviewers on the two issues where I need them to try installing / running the tests again, to see if my changes fix the problems they have. My next steps:
A lot of the feedback in the review was about structure / content of the documentation and the API, which I'll work on once I've done the restructuring above. We are also currently working on adding linters and making sure they pass Does this sound like a reasonable plan to everyone? Should I post an intermediate check-in with what I've addressed so far before completing the above steps? Or wait until after I'm done with them? (I've also moved the repo to a new organization, plenoptic-org, so I just updated my initial comment to reflect that) |
I don't think there's a need to do all that as long as we know you're converging. Understood you've got a lot on your plate right now! It's up to @sneakers-the-rat obvs but sounds like a reasonable plan to me |
As far as I'm concerned, the review timeline is up to you! We don't want to keep the reviewers hanging around forever, but it seems like it would be very reasonable to be responding to raised issues as you go and then pinging back here once you're in a state for everyone to take a look again. |
Submitting Author: Billy Broderick (@billbrod)
All current maintainers: @billbrod (there are several other authors / contributors, but I'm the only committed to maintaining)
Package Name: Plenoptic
One-Line Description of Package: a python library for model-based synthesis of perceptual stimuli
Repository Link: https://github.com/plenoptic-org/plenoptic
Version submitted: v1.0.2
EiC: @sneakers-the-rat
Editor: @sneakers-the-rat
Reviewer 1: @NickleDave
Reviewer 2: @DanielaPamplona
Reviewers assigned: 2023-12-13
Reviews due: 2024-01-19
Archive: TBD
JOSS DOI: TBD
Version accepted: TBD
Date accepted (month/day/year): TBD
Code of Conduct & Commitment to Maintain Package
Description
plenoptic
provides tools to help researchers understand their model by synthesizing novel informative stimuli (e.g., images, movies, or sound clips, depending on the model), which help build intuition for what features the model ignores and what it is sensitive to.Scope
Please indicate which category or categories.
Check out our package scope page to learn more about our
scope. (If you are unsure of which category you fit, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry):
Domain Specific & Community Partnerships
Community Partnerships
If your package is associated with an
existing community please check below:
I am not sure which of the above categories I fit under, but the discussion in my pre-submission inquiry (#97) assured me that I'm in scope.
Researchers in vision science, neuroscience, and machine learning. The goal is to generate novel stimuli (images, videos, audio) that researchers can then use in new experiments to better understand their computational models.
Not that I'm aware of. There are several bits of related research code, but no packages. Research code includes: https://github.com/ArturoDeza/Fast-Texforms, https://github.com/brialorelle/texformgen, https://github.com/ProgramofComputerGraphics/PooledStatisticsMetamers, https://github.com/freeman-lab/metamers/, among others.
@tag
the editor you contacted:#97 , @NickleDave
Technical checks
For details about the pyOpenSci packaging requirements, see our packaging guide. Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:
Publication Options
JOSS Checks
paper.md
matching JOSS's requirements with a high-level description in the package root or ininst/
.Note: JOSS accepts our review as theirs. You will NOT need to go through another full review. JOSS will only review your paper.md file. Be sure to link to this pyOpenSci issue when a JOSS issue is opened for your package. Also be sure to tell the JOSS editor that this is a pyOpenSci reviewed package once you reach this step.
Does the JOSS and pyOpenSci review happen simultaneously? I was going to add the
paper.md
and submit to JOSS after going through this review.Are you OK with Reviewers Submitting Issues and/or pull requests to your Repo Directly?
This option will allow reviewers to open smaller issues that can then be linked to PR's rather than submitting a more dense text based review. It will also allow you to demonstrate addressing the issue via PR links.
Confirm each of the following by checking the box.
Please fill out our survey
submission and improve our peer review process. We will also ask our reviewers
and editors to fill this out.
P.S. Have feedback/comments about our review process? Leave a comment here
Editor and Review Templates
The editor template can be found here.
The review template can be found here.
Footnotes
Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package. ↩
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: