[REVIEW]: Ananke: A Jupyter distribution integrating JupyterHub and Nbgrader into learning management systems

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @jeflem (Jens Flemming)
Repository: https://github.com/jeflem/ananke
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 0.5
Editor: @rougier
Reviewers: @rahuldevikar, @saksham-1020
Archive: Pending
Paper kind: software

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/c3596de73015a8145c03ae0e82bce147"><img src="https://jose.theoj.org/papers/c3596de73015a8145c03ae0e82bce147/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/c3596de73015a8145c03ae0e82bce147/status.svg)](https://jose.theoj.org/papers/c3596de73015a8145c03ae0e82bce147)

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

@rahuldevikar & @saksham-1020, 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://openjournals.readthedocs.io/en/jose/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @rougier 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

📝 Checklist for @saksham-1020

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- None

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) Core Specifi...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) Names and Ro...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) Deep Linking...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) Assignment a...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Nbgrader
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Moodle
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Podman
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Jupyter
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Canvas
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Ananke Jupyter Distribution
- No DOI given, and none found for title: jupyter-fs

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Repository Analysis Report

Code breakdown

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.98  T=0.05 s (1446.1 files/s, 164601.7 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markdown                        19            753              0           2791
Python                          30            650            682           2019
Jinja Template                   4            124              0            778
Containerfile                    3             51             47            198
Bourne Shell                    16             60             34            146
TeX                              1             10              0             73
JSON                             1              0              0              7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            74           1648            763           6012
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit Count by Author

120	Jens Flemming
    59	Marcus Wittig
     3	jeflem
     3	marcwit

Repository History

Repository age: First commit on September 04, 2023

Code distribution (top 3 48-hour windows):

Period	Insertions	% of Total	Signal	View Changes
Sep 07, 2023 - Sep 09, 2023	4685	25.0%	🟡	View diff
Aug 21, 2024 - Aug 23, 2024	3840	20.5%	🟢	View diff
Jul 21, 2024 - Jul 23, 2024	3096	16.5%	🟢	View diff

GitHub Activity Metrics

Metric	Count
GitHub stars	10
Forks	2
GitHub contributors	1
Releases	6
Total issues	45
Total pull requests	1
Unique commenters/reviewers (excluding authors)	2

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 740

🔴 Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[saksham-1020]

Thank you. I will begin reviewing the submission and follow the reviewer guidelines and checklist.

[saksham-1020]

@editorialbot generate my checklist

[editorialbot]

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

@editorialbot commands

[saksham-1020]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @saksham-1020, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

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

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set jose-paper as branch

# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

[saksham-1020]

Review checklist for @saksham-1020

Conflict of interest

• As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSE 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 JOSE code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/jeflem/ananke?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release?
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@jeflem) made substantial 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? (and documentation is sufficient?)
• 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 the need for this software 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?
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• 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 the need for this software and who the target audience is?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?