[REVIEW]: WRF-CMake: integrating CMake support into the Advanced Research WRF (ARW) modelling system

[whedon]

Submitting author: @letmaik (Maik Riechert)
Repository: https://github.com/WRF-CMake/WRF
Version: WRF-CMake-4.0.3
Editor: @arfon
Reviewer: @zbeekman, @andreas-h
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3403343

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9a87d84b2ed00ed82a6e297a4c34b3cf"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9a87d84b2ed00ed82a6e297a4c34b3cf/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9a87d84b2ed00ed82a6e297a4c34b3cf/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/9a87d84b2ed00ed82a6e297a4c34b3cf)

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

@zbeekman & @andreas-h, 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 @arfon know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @zbeekman

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

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?
• Version: WRF-CMake-4.0.3
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@letmaik) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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 function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @andreas-h

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

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?
• Version: WRF-CMake-4.0.3
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@letmaik) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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 function 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

• Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @zbeekman, it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

⭐ 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

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

PDF failed to compile for issue #1468 with the following error:

Can't find any papers to compile :-(

[arfon]

@zbeekman, @andreas-h - please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist above and giving feedback in this issue. The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html

Any questions/concerns please let me know.

[arfon]

@whedon generate pdf from branch joss-paper

[whedon]

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

[whedon]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

[zbeekman]

@letmaik Is D. Meyer on GitHub? Trying to ensure no conflicts of interest but, it's hard to guarantee without being able to look up the other author. The institution/association ("Independent Scholar") is not helpful for this.

[dmey]

Howdy @zbeekman. There shouldn't be any with me.

[zbeekman]

Yup, did some git archeology and figured that was probably you. Thanks!

[zbeekman]

@arfon @letmaik the version is listed simply as 4 but in the repository I see:

1. Git tag v4.0
2. pre-release with assets, notes & tag WRF-CMake-4.0](https://github.com/WRF-CMake/WRF/releases/tag/WRF-CMake-4.0)
3. pre-release with assets, notes & tag WRF-CMake-4.0.3
4. Numerous other tags with v4.x.y in them.

• @letmaik: Which one of these should we be reviewing to correspond to the paper?
• @arfon:
  • Do we need this issue to be more precise about the version under review?
  • Is it OK to be reviewing something tagged as a pre-release?

[arfon]

Do we need this issue to be more precise about the version under review?

It's important that the authors specify which version they're expecting you to review.

Is it OK to be reviewing something tagged as a pre-release?

Yes, as long as the authors are happy to tag a new release at the end of the review based on the pre-release content (this often happens for JOSS reviews).