[PRE REVIEW]: Choco-solver: A Java library for constraint programming

[editorialbot]

trafficstars

Submitting author: @cprudhom (Charles Prud'homme) Repository: https://github.com/chocoteam/choco-solver Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: 4.10.8 Editor: @jbytecode Reviewers: Pending Managing EiC: Arfon Smith

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c4e6329e6ef023c0b856ad6722ec8e34"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c4e6329e6ef023c0b856ad6722ec8e34/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c4e6329e6ef023c0b856ad6722ec8e34/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c4e6329e6ef023c0b856ad6722ec8e34)

Author instructions

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

@cprudhom if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

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 1.88  T=1.97 s (683.2 files/s, 119119.5 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Java                           1242          22422          50544         149788
reStructuredText                 24            813           1263            966
Python                            7            212            325            962
Markdown                         18            378              0            942
Maven                             4             48             90            854
TeX                               2              9              0            766
Bourne Shell                     16            233            131            747
XML                               3             15             30            552
YAML                             12             58             98            408
ANTLR Grammar                     2             61             46            359
SVG                               4              0              0            302
DOS Batch                         1             36              2            243
make                              2             37              9            204
Jupyter Notebook                  3              0            568            190
Bourne Again Shell                2             29             64            101
HTML                              3             14              7             37
Dockerfile                        1             15              1             28
MUMPS                             1              0              0             21
Gradle                            1              0              0              7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           1348          24380          53178         157477
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 902

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/BF00137870 is OK
- 10.1007/3-540-49481-2_30 is OK
- 10.1007/11564751_71 is OK
- 10.1007/11564751_18 is OK
- 10.1007/11493853_7 is OK
- 10.1145/1452044.1452046 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-04244-7_54 is OK
- 10.1007/s10601-014-9166-6 is OK
- 10.1007/s10601-013-9151-5 is OK
- 10.1109/TCIAIG.2011.2159716 is OK
- 10.1007/s10601-015-9223-9 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-23219-5_2 is OK
- 10.1109/ICTAI.2019.00019 is OK
- 10.4230/LIPIcs.CP.2021.9 is OK
- 10.1109/SCC.2019.00017 is OK
- 10.1007/s10601-021-09324-7 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1016/0004-3702(80)90051-x may be a valid DOI for title: Increasing Tree Search Efficiency for Constraint Satisfaction Problems
- 10.1016/0895-7177(93)90068-a may be a valid DOI for title: Extending CHIP in order to Solve Complex Scheduling and Placement Problems
- 10.1007/978-3-642-29828-8_15 may be a valid DOI for title: Activity-Based Search for Black-Box Constraint Programming Solvers
- 10.1007/978-3-540-30201-8_41 may be a valid DOI for title: Impact-Based Search Strategies for Constraint Programming
- 10.29007/b4dz may be a valid DOI for title: A Modelling Pearl with Sortedness Constraints
- 10.1109/ictai.2017.00164 may be a valid DOI for title: Making the first solution good!
- 10.1007/978-3-030-78375-4_8 may be a valid DOI for title: Efficient Methods to Search for Best Differential Characteristics on SKINNY
- 10.1007/978-3-319-44953-1_40 may be a valid DOI for title: Using Constraint Programming for the Urban Transit Crew Rescheduling Problem
- 10.1007/978-3-031-08011-1_21 may be a valid DOI for title: A MinCumulative Resource Constraint

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpa.2021.100085 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116149 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@cprudhom thanks for this submission. Can you please check those potentially missing/invalid DOIs? :point_up: You can edit your bib file and paper where needed and then call @editorialbot check references to check the DOIs again, and call @editorialbot generate pdf to update the draft paper.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@jbytecode you were suggested as handling editor here but you are handling many other submissions. I'll waitlist this for now but do let me know if we can assign this to you already. We have a backlog of editor assignments so were possible it would be great to assign already.

[jbytecode]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @jbytecode is now the editor

[jbytecode]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman - thank you, accepting gladly, of course I can help.

[jbytecode]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/BF00137870 is OK
- 10.1007/3-540-49481-2_30 is OK
- 10.1007/11564751_71 is OK
- 10.1007/11564751_18 is OK
- 10.1007/11493853_7 is OK
- 10.1145/1452044.1452046 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-04244-7_54 is OK
- 10.1007/s10601-014-9166-6 is OK
- 10.1007/s10601-013-9151-5 is OK
- 10.1109/TCIAIG.2011.2159716 is OK
- 10.1007/s10601-015-9223-9 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-23219-5_2 is OK
- 10.1109/ICTAI.2019.00019 is OK
- 10.4230/LIPIcs.CP.2021.9 is OK
- 10.1109/SCC.2019.00017 is OK
- 10.1007/s10601-021-09324-7 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1016/0004-3702(80)90051-x may be a valid DOI for title: Increasing Tree Search Efficiency for Constraint Satisfaction Problems
- 10.1016/0895-7177(93)90068-a may be a valid DOI for title: Extending CHIP in order to Solve Complex Scheduling and Placement Problems
- 10.1007/978-3-642-29828-8_15 may be a valid DOI for title: Activity-Based Search for Black-Box Constraint Programming Solvers
- 10.1007/978-3-540-30201-8_41 may be a valid DOI for title: Impact-Based Search Strategies for Constraint Programming
- 10.29007/b4dz may be a valid DOI for title: A Modelling Pearl with Sortedness Constraints
- 10.1109/ictai.2017.00164 may be a valid DOI for title: Making the first solution good!
- 10.1007/978-3-030-78375-4_8 may be a valid DOI for title: Efficient Methods to Search for Best Differential Characteristics on SKINNY
- 10.1007/978-3-319-44953-1_40 may be a valid DOI for title: Using Constraint Programming for the Urban Transit Crew Rescheduling Problem
- 10.1007/978-3-031-08011-1_21 may be a valid DOI for title: A MinCumulative Resource Constraint

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpa.2021.100085 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116149 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[jbytecode]

@cprudhom - could you please correct and add the invalid and the missing DOIs as suggested?

[jbytecode]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[jbytecode]

Dear @cprudhom,

It seems

• the paper has two authors. it is clear that the most of the contributions were handled by the authors.
• there are more commits from other contributors including @dimitri-justeau (161 commits), @ArthurGodet (39 commits), @JLiangWaterloo (36 commits), @xlorca, @xela85, etc.

could you please clarify why those people are omitted from the manuscript as authors.

Thank you in advance.

[jbytecode]

@cprudhom - Just a friendly ping. Are you able to receive our messages? Could you please update your status?

[cprudhom]

Dear @jbytecode,

Thank you for reviewing the article. I was out of the office but this week I should be able to look at the comments and get back asap.

Best regards

[cprudhom]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/0004-3702(80)90051-X is OK
- 10.1016/0895-7177(93)90068-A is OK
- 10.1007/BF00137870 is OK
- 10.1007/3-540-49481-2_30 is OK
- 10.1007/11564751_71 is OK
- 10.1007/11564751_18 is OK
- 10.1007/11493853_7 is OK
- 10.1145/1452044.1452046 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-04244-7_54 is OK
- 10.1007/s10601-014-9166-6 is OK
- 10.1007/s10601-013-9151-5 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-29828-8_15 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-30201-8_41 is OK
- 10.1109/TCIAIG.2011.2159716 is OK
- 10.29007/b4dz is OK
- 10.1007/s10601-015-9223-9 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-23219-5_2 is OK
- 10.1109/ictai.2017.00164 is OK
- 10.1109/ICTAI.2019.00019 is OK
- 10.4230/LIPIcs.CP.2021.9 is OK
- 10.1016/j.simpa.2021.100085 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-78375-4_8 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-44953-1_40 is OK
- 10.1109/SCC.2019.00017 is OK
- 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116149 is OK
- 10.1007/s10601-021-09324-7 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-08011-1_21 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[cprudhom]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[cprudhom]

It seems

• the paper has two authors. it is clear that the most of the contributions were handled by the authors.
• there are more commits from other contributors including @dimitri-justeau (161 commits), @ArthurGodet (39 commits), @JLiangWaterloo (36 commits), @xlorca, @xela85, etc.

could you please clarify why those people are omitted from the manuscript as authors.

@jbytecode I made the choice the define as authors the main contributors of the library, from design to implementation. The other contributors you mentioned (and I think there are some missing) have have participated in the improvement of the library, either by correcting bugs or by enriching it, to a lesser extent. I have chosen to mention their names in the Acknowledgements section, but I suppose that can be modified.

[jbytecode]

@cprudhom - that explanation looks reasonable to me.

Do you have any suggestions for potential reviewers? You can use the list located on top of this page (the list of people) . Please mention their usernames without using the @ character just because we don't want to bother them.

Thank you in advance.

[cprudhom]

I suppose that the most relevant reviewers should know what constraint programming is. So, I suggest the following three names: hooman650, skadio and GuillaumeDerval. If you need more names, tell me, I will broaden the spectrum of keywords.

Best regards

[jbytecode]

👋👋👋 Dear @hooman650, @skadio and @GuillaumeDerval. 👋👋👋

Would you be willing to assist in reviewing this submission for JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software)?

JOSS publishes articles about open source research software. The submission I'd like you to review is titled: "Choco-solver: A Java library for constraint programming". You can find more information at the top of this Github issue (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4577).

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. If you have any questions please let me know.

This is the pre-review issue. After setting at least 2 reviewers we will start the review process in a seperate thread. In that thread, there will be 20 check items for each single reviewer.

Thank you in advance!

[jbytecode]

👋👋👋 Dear @oesteban, @Jgoldfar, @jmadera 👋👋👋

Would you be willing to assist in reviewing this submission for JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software)?

JOSS publishes articles about open source research software. The submission I'd like you to review is titled: "Choco-solver: A Java library for constraint programming". You can find more information at the top of this Github issue (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/4577).

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. If you have any questions please let me know.

This is the pre-review issue. After setting at least 2 reviewers we will start the review process in a seperate thread. In that thread, there will be 20 check items for each single reviewer.

Thank you in advance!

[jbytecode]

@cprudhom - do you have more suggestions? I think it is hard to find reviewers that have both experiences on Java and constraint programming. The search space can be broadened using different keywords.

If you have no more suggestions, I will try to find reviewers, of course.

Thank you in advance.

[skadio]

Team, I can review this submission.

In fact, Choco has been a standard tool of choice in my academic teaching and research when it comes to JAVA. It is a well-designed and performant software and its contributions to the community is well-known. Kudos to all contributors for their work!

This manuscript would make a contribution to JOSS community. More broadly, it would also help bridge communities: I doubt if many CP (and by extension SAT, ILP etc.) are aware of the JOSS community.

That said, it is a busy time of the year (with moving into the last quarter after summer) but this is right at the intersection of CP and open-source so if you allow me a couple weeks, I can return a full review.

I read the manuscript and here are some immediate observations on the write-up to parallelize the work:

• The paper reads well for a CP researcher, but for JOSS community, I have a few suggestions that should be easy to make:

• The Abstract goes into a CP Overview and the link between Choco and CP is kinda gets lost and/or not clear. This might be obvious for a CP person but not necessarily to a general reader. Some of the technical details here in abstract are also "too technical", in my opinion. For example, it mixes constraints and predicates (are they the same?).

• Re: Abstract. If I wear a general user hat, it is not clear that's the value proposition. We need to answer why should the user/reader be interested using it. Choco has many great applications, why not mention a few of these industrial domains as success stories for CP/Choco? Then, the user can achieve in their domains using Choco. That "promise/proposition" shall be added to the abstract.

• We need an example CP problem to make the scenario concrete for the user. Why not consider N-Queens or sth similar (and then we can build on the CP Model). You might even make 2 models; one abstract model and then one Java Choco implementation. What we would like to highlight here is that there is no gap between problem description and the implementation. That "declarative" nature is the strength of CP/Choco.

• The example can help bridge the definitions (constraints, domains, variables) and the Features/Functionality.

[jbytecode]

@editorialbot add @skadio as reviewer

@skadio - thank you for accepting our invitation.

I think the author @cprudhom will consider your early suggestions before we set the second reviewer.

The reviewing will be started in a separate thread, and of course, you will have a couple of extra weeks for reviewing process.

Thank you in advance