[REVIEW]: Minterpy: multivariate polynomial interpolation in Python

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @damar-wicaksono (Damar Wicaksono)
Repository: https://github.com/minterpy-project/minterpy
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): dev-joss
Version: v0.3.0
Editor: @xuanxu
Reviewers: @sixpearls, @kenohori
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/96208a133980e518cdfdc36abdc504de"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/96208a133980e518cdfdc36abdc504de/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/96208a133980e518cdfdc36abdc504de/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/96208a133980e518cdfdc36abdc504de)

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

@sixpearls & @kenohori, 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 @xuanxu 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

@sixpearls, please create your checklist typing: @editorialbot generate my checklist

@kenohori, please create your checklist typing: @editorialbot generate my checklist

[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

- 10.1103/physrevb.107.155148 is OK
- 10.1145/3583133.3590743 is OK
- 10.1137/22m1536510 is OK
- 10.1109/5.993400 is OK
- 10.1016/s0377-0427(02)00517-4 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-01177-2_5 is OK
- 10.1090/s0002-9939-1959-0113131-7 is OK
- 10.1137/16m1066312 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jocs.2015.08.008 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04249 is OK
- 10.1016/j.softx.2020.100450 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00166 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05489 is OK
- 10.1137/S1064827501387826 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01745 is OK
- 10.1090/proc/13623 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2010.10824 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2212.11706 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jat.2012.11.005 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Fast numerical methods for stochastic computations...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Approximation theory and approximation practice, e...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Six myths of polynomial interpolation and quadratu...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Chebfun guide
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ApproxFun.jl: a Julia package for function approxi...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ChebPy - a Python implementation of Chebfun
- No DOI given, and none found for title: pychebfun - Python Chebyshev functions

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.98  T=0.22 s (976.2 files/s, 233553.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          78           4953          10866          10698
Jupyter Notebook                30              0          11473           5291
reStructuredText                86           1659           2012           2490
Markdown                         5            264              0            881
TeX                              2             69              1            561
YAML                            11             43             40            543
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
TOML                             1              2              0              7
CSS                              1              1              0              6
INI                              1              0              0              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           217           7003          24400          20515
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   276	Damar Wicaksono
    49	Sachin Krishnan Thekke Veettil
    46	MrMinimal64
    35	szabo
    32	Hernandez Acosta, Uwe (FWKH) - 13668
    28	Uwe Hernandez Acosta
     6	Wicaksono
     4	Michael Hecht
     2	JaninaSchreiber
     2	Sachin Krishnan T V
     2	Thekke Veettil, Sachin Krishnan (FWU) - 142348
     1	Jannik Michelfeit
     1	jschreib

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

⚠️ Wordcount for paper.md is 1617

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

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

[xuanxu]

@sixpearls @kenohori – This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above. Please create your checklist typing:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/7702 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please make a start well ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule.