joss-reviews
joss-reviews copied to clipboard
openjournals
[REVIEW]: CESAR-P: A dynamic urban building energy simulation tool
Submitting author: @kristina-o (Kristina Orehounig) Repository: https://github.com/hues-platform/cesar-p-core Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper Version: V2.0.1 Editor: @timtroendle Reviewers: @olejandro, @noah80, @jasondegraw Archive: Pending
Status
Status badge code:
HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fcc09a8a4324668a6559e39f98370473"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fcc09a8a4324668a6559e39f98370473/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fcc09a8a4324668a6559e39f98370473)
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
@olejandro & @noah80 & @jasondegraw, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review. First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:
@editorialbot generate my checklist
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @timtroendle know.
✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨
Checklists
Hello humans, 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
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.03.020 is OK
- 10.1016/S0378-7788(00)00114-6 is OK
- 10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.111844 is OK
- 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108574 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4682880 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=1.92 s (170.0 files/s, 58386.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML 11 0 891 61204
JSON 4 0 0 16042
Python 215 3306 7789 13229
XML 15 107 0 4631
reStructuredText 42 756 328 1360
YAML 30 53 810 1334
Markdown 2 14 0 107
TeX 1 6 0 65
TOML 1 6 0 62
Dockerfile 1 18 28 41
DOS Batch 1 8 1 27
INI 1 12 0 25
make 1 4 6 10
CSS 1 1 1 4
Bourne Shell 1 0 0 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 327 4291 9854 98144
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@olejandro, @noah80, @jasondegraw, I will set a reminder for each of you in three weeks from now to see where you stand with your review at that point in time.
Review checklist for @olejandro
Conflict of interest
- [x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.
Code of Conduct
- [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.
General checks
- [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/hues-platform/cesar-p-core?
- [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
- [ ] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@kristina-o) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
- [x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Functionality
- [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
- [ ] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
- [x] 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?
- [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
- [x] 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)?
- [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality 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
- [x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
- [ ] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- [ ] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- [ ] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
- [ ] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?
thank you @timtroendle to organize everything and thank you @jasondegraw, @olejandro and @noah80 for reviewing our submission!
:wave: @olejandro, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @noah80, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @jasondegraw, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
Review checklist for @noah80
Conflict of interest
- [x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.
Code of Conduct
- [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.
General checks
- [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/hues-platform/cesar-p-core?
- [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
- [x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@kristina-o) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
- [x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Functionality
- [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
- [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
- [x] 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
- [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
- [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
- [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
- [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
- [x] 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
- [x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
- [x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- [x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- [x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
- [x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?
👋 @noah80, @olejandro, @jasondegraw, we are approaching the end of the six-week review period. Can you let us know where you stand with your review and by when you plan to finish?
@timtroendle I was stuck at this point: "Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@kristina-o) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?"
Kristina has not contributed anything to the source code as far as I can tell. She's not listed in the repository at all. How to proceed?
Thanks for the update, @noah80. You can simply leave this box unchecked for now.
We don't require contributions of authors to be code contributions. @kristina-o, can you clarify this point?
Review checklist for @jasondegraw
Conflict of interest
- [x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.
Code of Conduct
- [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.
General checks
- [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/hues-platform/cesar-p-core?
- [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
- [x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@kristina-o) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
- [x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Functionality
- [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
- [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
- [x] 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
- [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
- [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
- [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
- [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
- [x] 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
- [x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
- [x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- [x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- [x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
- [x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?
Thank you @noah80 for reviewing our submission and @timtroendle for forwarding the question. My contributions to CESAR-P (and also the predecessor CESAR) include the original idea for the tool, contributing to the development of the approach, and supervision of further developments. The current version of CESAR-P was coded by our software engineer Leonie Fierz, she is listed together with me as the main authors. Hope that clarifies my contributions.
@timtroendle I'm working my way through the checklist, currently working on the "Functionality" and "Documentation" sections. I plan on finishing the review this week.
The software described in the paper is intended for modeling and simulation of sets of buildings (urban areas, campuses, etc.) and is implemented in Python. It is well documented and (at least in the files that I looked at) well written. The paper describes the need and features of the software, but I would not recommend acceptance of the paper without revisions. I do not believe these revisions are major revisions. The paper revisions are:
- The paper (and the documentation as well) is missing a clear statement of the intended audience. This is particularly important as urban BEM becomes more and more popular. This is why both of the "statement of need" items on the checklist are unchecked.
- The paper does not clearly address the state of the field. There are other options available and this one looks like it does have some unique features, but that isn't clear from the paper.
- The paper does not have enough about what the software can do. It would be much better if an example analysis was presented (in abbreviated form, perhaps one of the examples).
Other items from the checklist:
- The installation documentation works well and there are examples, but there are some minor typos and the simple example fails initially. On the bright side, the error clearly states that there needs to be a TEMP environment variable defined, and doing that allows the example to run. Maybe I missed a step in the directions, but it would be good to make sure that the example runs without modifications. That example also generates a fair number of (probably harmless) deprecation warnings from pandas. I also looked into the EnergyPlus outputs a little, and I did see a warning about unused objects. Those are also probably harmless, but speaking from experience (with EnergyPlus), some users can be put off by even harmless warnings.
- There are tests, but I was unable to run them. There's a lot of documentation, so perhaps I just missed that.
- There is developer documentation, but I did not find information on how to contribute or get support. Another thing that I maybe just missed.
One thing not really in the checklist:
- I did not find a clear statement on supported platforms. It looks like it is probably any platform that E+ runs on that supports Python, but it would be better if there was a clear statement on where it should be expected to work. I ran it on a fresh instance of Ubuntu 20.04 and it worked well as far as I could tell.
In summary, there are some things I'd like to see fixed, but in general @kristina-o and coworkers are to be congratulated on this work. I'm happy to follow up on any of the above items by filing issues or whatever else would be desired.
@jasondegraw thank you for the review and the constructive feedback! We will go through it in detail and improve the points you mentioned. Just two points from the technical side:
- The tests are run in a CI pipeline on our internal GitLab Server and it should actually be possible to run them with pytest after installing the package for development with poetry.
- I will think about how we can improve regarding the missing TEMP environment variable, which actually is a default on Windows.
@LeonieFierz You're most welcome, I'll give the tests another try at some point this week.
@jasondegraw That would be great if you could try to run the tests. To do so, you first need the "development installation" as described in https://cesar-p-core.readthedocs.io/en/latest/development/development-installation.html. With that set up, you can start the tests e.g. with
poetry run pytest tests
Note that some of the tests need EnergyPlus 9.5.0 installed and configured in the environment variables ENERGYPLUS_EXE and ENERGYPLUS_VER (see https://cesar-p-core.readthedocs.io/en/latest/installation.html#energyplus). Tests depending on E+ Installation: tests\test_eplus_adapter\test_eplus_adapter.py, tests\test_eplus_adapter\test_solar_potential.py, tests\test_integration\test_cesar_integration.py, tests\test_model\test_model_pickling.py
And you mentioned that there were a few typos you had to fix in the cesar-p-usage-examples/simple_example. I just tested it again and it run without any adaption on Windows. Do you remember what was the problem if there was any besides the missing TEMP environment variable?
@olejandro, @noah80 : Can you please give us update on how the review is going?
@olejandro, @noah80, are you still working on the review or do you want to be removed as reviewers of this submission?