test

[lwasser]

Submitting Author: Juno Dog (@chayadecacao )
All current maintainers: (@github_handle1, @github_handle2)
Package Name: Package name here
One-Line Description of Package: Description here
Repository Link:
Version submitted:
Editor: @chayadecacao
Reviewers: @lwasser, @chayadecacao
Archive: TBD
JOSS DOI: TBD
Version accepted: TBD
Date accepted (month/day/year): TBD

---

Code of Conduct & Commitment to Maintain Package

• I agree to abide by pyOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package after should it be accepted.
• I have read and will commit to package maintenance after the review as per the pyOpenSci Policies Guidelines.

Description

• Include a brief paragraph describing what your package does:

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):

  • Data retrieval
  • Data extraction
  • Data processing/munging
  • Data deposition
  • Data validation and testing
  • Data visualization¹
  • Workflow automation
  • Citation management and bibliometrics
  • Scientific software wrappers
  • Database interoperability

Domain Specific

• Geospatial
• Education

Community Partnerships

If your package is associated with an
existing community please check below:

• Astropy: Link coming soon to standards
• Pangeo: My package adheres to the Pangeo standards listed in the pyOpenSci peer review guidebook

• For all submissions, explain how the and why the package falls under the categories you indicated above. In your explanation, please address the following points (briefly, 1-2 sentences for each):

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

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

  • 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.
• uses an OSI approved license.
• contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
• includes documentation with examples for all functions.
• contains a tutorial with examples of its essential functions and uses.
• has a test suite.
• has continuous integration setup, such as GitHub Actions CircleCI, and/or others.

Publication Options

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

JOSS Checks

• 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 is not a "minor utility" as defined by JOSS's submission requirements: "Minor ‘utility’ packages, including ‘thin’ API clients, are not acceptable." pyOpenSci welcomes these packages under "Data Retrieval", but JOSS has slightly different criteria.
• 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: 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.

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.

• Yes I am OK with reviewers submitting requested changes as issues to my repo. Reviewers will then link to the issues in their submitted review.

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

• I have read the author guide.
• I expect to maintain this package for at least 2 years and can help find a replacement for the maintainer (team) if needed.

Please fill out our survey

• Last but not least please fill out our pre-review survey. This helps us track
  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.

Review checklist for @lwasser

---

🎉 has been approved by pyOpenSci! Thank you for submitting and many thanks to for reviewing this package! 😸

Author Wrap Up Tasks

There are a few things left to do to wrap up this submission:

• Activate Zenodo watching the repo if you haven't already done so.
• Tag and create a release to create a Zenodo version and DOI.
• Add the badge for pyOpenSci peer-review to the README.md of . The badge should be [![pyOpenSci](https://tinyurl.com/y22nb8up)](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-review/issues/issue-number).
• Please fill out the post-review survey. All maintainers and reviewers should fill this out.

It looks like you would like to submit this package to JOSS. Here are the next steps:

• Once the JOSS issue is opened for the package, we strongly suggest that you subscribe to issue updates. This will allow you to continue to update the issue labels on this review as it goes through the JOSS process.
• Login to the JOSS website and fill out the JOSS submission form using your Zenodo DOI. When you fill out the form, be sure to mention and link to the approved pyOpenSci review. JOSS will tag your package for expedited review if it is already pyOpenSci approved.
• Wait for a JOSS editor to approve the presubmission (which includes a scope check).
• Once the package is approved by JOSS, you will be given instructions by JOSS about updating the citation information in your README file.
• When the JOSS review is complete, add a comment to your review in the pyOpenSci software-review repo here that it has been approved by JOSS. An editor will then add the JOSS-approved label to this issue.

🎉 Congratulations! You are now published with both JOSS and pyOpenSci! 🎉

Editor Final Checks

Please complete the final steps to wrap up this review. Editor, please do the following:

• Make sure that the maintainers filled out the post-review survey
• Invite the maintainers to submit a blog post highlighting their package. Feel free to use / adapt language found in this comment to help guide the author.
• Change the status tag of the issue to 6/pyOS-approved6 🚀🚀🚀.
• Invite the package maintainer(s) and both reviewers to slack if they wish to join.
• If the author submits to JOSS, please continue to update the labels for JOSS on this issue until the author is accepted (do not remove the 6/pyOS-approved label). Once accepted add the label 9/joss-approved to the issue. Skip this check if the package is not submitted to JOSS.
• If the package is JOSS-accepted please add the JOSS doi to the YAML at the top of the issue.

---

If you have any feedback for us about the review process please feel free to share it here. We are always looking to improve our process and documentation in the peer-review-guide.

Footnotes

1. Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package. ↩

[pyosbot]

Hey @lwasser 👋 welcome to pyOpenSci’s scientific Python peer review process!

We’ve seen your message. Someone from our editorial team will get back to you within the next week about this submission.
In the meantime, feel free to check out our packaging guide or feel free to ask questions on our Discourse forum.

[lwasser]

@pyosbot assign eic: @lwasser

[pyosbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@pyosbot help

[lwasser]

@pyosbot assign eic

[lwasser]

@pyosbot assignee: @lwasser

[pyosbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@pyosbot help

[lwasser]

@pyosbot add assignee: @lwasser

[pyosbot]

@lwasser added as assignee.

[lwasser]

@pyosbot add @chayadecacao as editor

[pyosbot]

Assigned! @chayadecacao is now the editor

[lwasser]

@pyosbot add @chayadecacao as editor

[pyosbot]

Assigned! @chayadecacao is now the editor

[lwasser]

now seeing if editor assignee works if no assignee is there?

@pyosbot remove assignee: @lwasser

[lwasser]

@pyosbot remove assignee: @lwasser

[pyosbot]

@lwasser removed from assignees.

[lwasser]

@pyosbot remove editor

[pyosbot]

Editor removed!

[lwasser]

@pyosbot assign editor @chayadecacao

[pyosbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@pyosbot help

[lwasser]

@pyosbot assigne @chayadecacao as editor

[pyosbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@pyosbot help

[lwasser]

@pyosbot assign @chayadecacao as editor

[pyosbot]

Assigned! @chayadecacao is now the editor

[lwasser]

chayadecacao is not added as an assignee but added as an editor. so it's partially working as expected.

[pyosbot]

Assigned! @lwasser is now the editor

[lwasser]

@pyosbot assign @chayadecacao as editor

[pyosbot]

Assigned! @chayadecacao is now the editor

[lwasser]

@pyosbot assign @lwasser as editor

[pyosbot]

Assigned! @lwasser is now the editor

[lwasser]

@pyosbot assign @chayadecacao as editor

[pyosbot]

Assigned! @chayadecacao is now the editor

[lwasser]

@pyosbot seeking reviewers

[lwasser]

@pyosbot add @lwasser as reviewer

[pyosbot]

@lwasser added to the reviewers list!

[lwasser]

@pyosbot add @chayadecacao as reviewer

[pyosbot]

@chayadecacao added to the reviewers list!

[lwasser]

@pyosbot reviewers assigned

[lwasser]

@pyosbot editor response

[pyosbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@pyosbot help

[lwasser]

@pyosbot help

[pyosbot]

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

# List all available commands
@pyosbot help

# Show our community Code of Conduct and Guidelines
@pyosbot code of conduct

# Allow editors to move the review to EiC checks
@pyosbot assign eic

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

# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@pyosbot assign @username as editor

# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@pyosbot remove editor

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@pyosbot add @reviewer-login as reviewer

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@pyosbot remove @reviewer-login from reviewers

# Add review checklist for a user
@pyosbot add checklist for @username

# Remove the checklist for a user
@pyosbot remove checklist for @username

# Add review checklist for a user
@pyosbot add checklist for @username

# Remove the checklist for a user
@pyosbot remove checklist for @username

# Label issue with: 2/seeking-reviewers. Remove labels: 1/editor-assigned
@pyosbot seeking reviewers

# Label issue with: 3/reviewer(s)-assigned. Remove labels: 2/seeking-reviewers
@pyosbot reviewers assigned

# Label issue with: 4/review-in-awaiting-changes. Remove labels: 3/reviewer(s)-assigned
@pyosbot reviews are in

# Label issue with: 5/awaiting-reviewer-response. Remove labels: 4/review-in-awaiting-changes
@pyosbot author response complete

# Set a value for version
@pyosbot set v1.0.0 as version

# Set a value for archive
@pyosbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7158585 as archive

# Remind an author, a reviewer or the editor to return to a review after a 
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@pyosbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

[lwasser]

@pyosbot add checklist for @lwasser

[pyosbot]

Checklist added for @lwasser

[pyosbot]

Checklist added for @lwasser