[PRE REVIEW]: FiLiP: A python software development kit (SDK) for accelerating the development of services based on FIWARE IoT platform

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @djs0109 (Junsong Du)
Repository: https://github.com/RWTH-EBC/FiLiP
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): JOSS_submission
Version: v0.3.0
Editor: @srmnitc
Reviewers: @DiegoAscanio, @abhishektiwari
Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/281deaab56c15d24502cf5f938fddb0a"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/281deaab56c15d24502cf5f938fddb0a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/281deaab56c15d24502cf5f938fddb0a/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/281deaab56c15d24502cf5f938fddb0a)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @djs0109. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@djs0109 if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, 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 1.90  T=0.20 s (772.5 files/s, 177550.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         106           4436          10280          16964
CSV                              2              0              0           2134
Markdown                        19            238              0            810
reStructuredText                21            149            252            177
TeX                              1             10              0             95
YAML                             3              5              1             47
make                             1              4              6             10
XML                              1              0              0              4
SVG                              1              0              0              1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           155           4842          10539          20242
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   502	Thomas Storek
   212	Reding Jeff
   149	Felix Rehmann
   115	JunsongDu
    79	thomas.storek
    42	Iris Koester
    41	RedingJeff
    38	tstorek
    21	sbanoeon
    13	fabian.wuellhorst
    10	Saira Bano
     9	FelixStege
     9	dnikolay-ebc
     6	Alexander
     5	Iris Marie Köster
     5	Sebastian.Borges
     4	Marwa Maghnie
     3	Sebastian Blechmann
     3	Steffen Vogel
     2	Manuel Pitz
     2	Martin Altenburger
     2	felix.stegemerten
     2	tzu-chen.liu
     1	FWuellhorst
     1	Richard Marston
     1	SBlechmann
     1	SebastianBorges
     1	Stephan
     1	cl0-de
     1	irismarie
     1	j.azzam
     1	orange95
     1	sb196556

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 2001

🔴 Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

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

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot query scope

[editorialbot]

Submission flagged for editorial review.

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1088/1742-6596/1343/1/012053 is OK
- 10.1088/1742-6596/1343/1/012063 is OK
- 10.18154/RWTH-2022-11779 is OK
- 10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104622 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: FIWARE Catalogue – FIWARE
- No DOI given, and none found for title: OpenAPI Specification
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Pydantic: Data validation using Python type hint
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Unitest: Unit testing framework
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Requests: HTTP for Humans
- No DOI given, and none found for title: FIWARE-NGSI v2 Specification

INVALID DOIs

- None

[kyleniemeyer]

Hi @djs0109, the JOSS editorial board is going to take a closer look at your submission to see if this meets our scope as research software. We'll get back to you within a week or two.

[djs0109]

Hi @kyleniemeyer, I hope you are doing well! Are there any updates on the progress?

[kyleniemeyer]

@djs0109 We will proceed with reviewing your submission, once we find an editor. However, could you work on revising the paper to make the research applications of your software more clear? This was the main feedback from our scope review.

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot invite @srmnitc as editor

Hi @srmnitc, this is a bit outside your wheelhouse, but could you edit this one?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[srmnitc]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @srmnitc is now the editor

[srmnitc]

@editorialbot invite @srmnitc as editor

Hi @srmnitc, this is a bit outside your wheelhouse, but could you edit this one?

I can edit this one, @kyleniemeyer !

[srmnitc]

Hi @djs0109 , I will be the handling editor for this submission. The next step would be to find some reviewers for the submission. Please feel free to give any suggestions for reviewers that you might have, and, feel free to ask me any questions here.

[djs0109]

@djs0109 We will proceed with reviewing your submission, once we find an editor. However, could you work on revising the paper to make the research applications of your software more clear? This was the main feedback from our scope review.

@kyleniemeyer Hi, sure! We are working on it now.

[djs0109]

Hi @djs0109 , I will be the handling editor for this submission. The next step would be to find some reviewers for the submission. Please feel free to give any suggestions for reviewers that you might have, and, feel free to ask me any questions here.

@srmnitc OK, thanks for the information! I would like to know whether there is a pool of potential reviewers? Or who can be suggested as a reviewer?

[srmnitc]

@djs0109 https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers this should provide a list of reviewers. But you are welcome to suggest outside of the list too. Please make sure you mention the Github usernames without the @ symbol. For example, djs0109 instead
of @djs0109. I will also start by finding some reviewers in the next few days.

[srmnitc]

👋🏽 @shahchiragh @devDess @SamMachariaPhD, would either of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html. Thanks!

[srmnitc]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

optimade-python-tools: a Python library for serving and consuming materials data via OPTIMADE APIs
Submitting author: @ml-evs
Handling editor: @jgostick (Active)
Reviewers: @hungpham2017, @jamesrhester
Similarity score: 0.6729

Φ-ML: Intuitive Scientific Computing with Dimension Types for Jax, PyTorch, TensorFlow & NumPy
Submitting author: @holl-
Handling editor: @mstimberg (Active)
Reviewers: @wandeln, @chaoming0625, @gauravbokil8
Similarity score: 0.6684

PyDGN: a Python Library for Flexible and Reproducible Research on Deep Learning for Graphs
Submitting author: @diningphil
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @idoby, @sepandhaghighi
Similarity score: 0.6609

OpenCADD-KLIFS: A Python package to fetch kinase data from the KLIFS database
Submitting author: @dominiquesydow
Handling editor: @richardjgowers (Active)
Reviewers: @ojeda-e, @andrewtarzia, @mcs07
Similarity score: 0.6608

PySD: System Dynamics Modeling in Python
Submitting author: @rogersamso
Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active)
Reviewers: @blsqr, @sixpearls
Similarity score: 0.6582

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[srmnitc]

👋🏽 @DiegoAscanio @shahchiragh @manojrege , would either of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html. Thanks!

[DiegoAscanio]

Hi @srmnitc, thank you for the mention! I will contribute (:

[DiegoAscanio]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

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

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

[DiegoAscanio]

@editorialbot generate my checklist

[editorialbot]

Checklists can only be created once the review has started in the review issue

[srmnitc]

@editorialbot generate my checklist

@DiegoAscanio thanks for agreeing to be reviewer. I have to find one more reviewer, after which I will start the review in a different issue. There, you would be able to start the review. Hopefully, I find the next reviewer in the next few days, thanks!

[srmnitc]

@editorialbot add @DiegoAscanio as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@DiegoAscanio added to the reviewers list!

[DiegoAscanio]

@editorialbot generate my checklist

@DiegoAscanio thanks for agreeing to be reviewer. I have to find one more reviewer, after which I will start the review in a different issue. There, you would be able to start the review. Hopefully, I find the next reviewer in the next few days, thanks!

You're welcome (:

[abhishektiwari]

@srmnitc Happy to be reviewer on this. Looks straightforward Python package for IoT APIs.

[srmnitc]

@srmnitc Happy to be reviewer on this. Looks straightforward Python package for IoT APIs.

Thanks a lot!

[srmnitc]

@editorialbot add @abhishektiwari as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@abhishektiwari added to the reviewers list!

[srmnitc]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6953.