Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

JOSS #45

Merged
merged 21 commits into from
Dec 19, 2023
Merged

JOSS #45

merged 21 commits into from
Dec 19, 2023

Conversation

castelao
Copy link
Owner

@castelao castelao commented Oct 3, 2022

First draft

@castelao castelao self-assigned this Oct 3, 2022
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Oct 3, 2022

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (184b2ed) 81.57% compared to head (a121331) 81.57%.

❗ Current head a121331 differs from pull request most recent head 374c34d. Consider uploading reports for the commit 374c34d to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #45   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   81.57%   81.57%           
=======================================
  Files           6        6           
  Lines        2008     2008           
=======================================
  Hits         1638     1638           
  Misses        370      370           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@castelao
Copy link
Owner Author

castelao commented Dec 6, 2023

A note to myself. I forgot to cite the GSW-Fortran!

It seems like it was the only implementation with a doi missing. It
might be worth figure out how to cite the other implementation, even if
those other ones don't have a doi or any proper citation descriptor.
Type techreport might be more adequate. Other minor fixes.
@efiring, thanks for the note. Is it bette now? The point behind is that
with `features='compat'` we guarantee compatibility with GSW-m. While
GSW-C has some minor differences.
Somehow JOSS processing assumes that a bib reference type manual should
be from a software and adds '[Computer software]' to the refence.

Let's see if a techreport resolves that.
Playing with bib file.
Back to pages 1--28 instead of 28pp
It's up to JOSS references style to decide showing it or not.
For the software without DOI, reference type 'manual' might be better
than 'article'.
@castelao castelao merged commit 6587447 into main Dec 19, 2023
23 checks passed
@castelao castelao deleted the joss branch December 19, 2023 19:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants