[REVIEW]: FlowFPX: Nimble Tools for Debugging Floating-Point Exceptions

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @ashton314 (Ashton Wiersdorf)
Repository: https://github.com/utahplt/juliacon2023-paper
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v2.1.1
Editor: @lucaferranti
Reviewers: @JeffreySarnoff, @dpsanders
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.14396140

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/338a66061153419be896c7f7aab449ac"><img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/338a66061153419be896c7f7aab449ac/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/338a66061153419be896c7f7aab449ac/status.svg)](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/338a66061153419be896c7f7aab449ac)

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

@JeffreySarnoff & @dpsanders, 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 @lucaferranti 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 @JeffreySarnoff

📝 Checklist for @dpsanders

[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 source files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.05 s (851.6 files/s, 387691.8 lines/s)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                             files          blank        comment           code
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TeX                                     11            464            403          14638
SVG                                     29              0              0           3232
Windows Module Definition                1              0              0           1593
Ruby                                     1              8              4             45
Racket                                   1              5              5             38
YAML                                     1              0              0             34
Julia                                    1              3              0             14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                                    45            480            412          19594
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    90	Ashton Wiersdorf
    37	Ben Greenman

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/103162.103163 is OK
- 10.1109/IEEESTD.1985.82928 is OK
- 10.1029/2020MS002246 is OK
- 10.1145/3316279.3316281 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2014.90 is OK
- 10.1145/3579990.3580020 is OK
- 10.11588/ans.2015.100.20553 is OK
- 10.1145/3324989.3325721 is OK
- 10.1145/2998441 is OK
- 10.1515/jnum-2012-0013 is OK
- 10.1145/3330345.3330346 is OK
- 10.1016/j.parco.2021.102870 is OK
- 10.1002/0471028959 is OK
- 10.1109/Correctness56720.2022.00006 is OK
- 10.1109/Correctness54621.2021.00007 is OK
- 10.1145/3520313.3534655 is OK
- 10.1109/XLOOP56614.2022.00010 is OK
- 10.1145/3588195.3592991 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02018 is OK
- 10.1109/ASE.2019.00118 is OK
- 10.1109/IISWC55918.2022.00014 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.5115765 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2014.11 is OK
- 10.1145/2737924.2737959 is OK
- 10.1145/3586183.3606819 is OK
- 10.1109/IPDPS.2007.370254 is OK
- 10.1109/MC.2019.2926614 is OK
- 10.1145/3369583.3392673 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-76526-6 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2209.05433 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Handling IEEE 754 Invalid Operation Exceptions in ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Low-Precision Climate Computing: Preserving Inform...
- 10.2307/2317055 may be a valid DOI for title: The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 2: Seminum...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: OrdinaryDiffEq.jl
- No DOI given, and none found for title: DUNE Numerics
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Open Source Reports
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Issue Search: \textttNaN+infinity
- No DOI given, and none found for title: IEEE Working Group P3109 Interim Report on 8-bit B...

INVALID DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-031-08751-6\_9 URL is INVALID

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.tex is 4728

🔴 Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

License info:

🔴 Failed to discover a valid open source license

[editorialbot]

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

[lucaferranti]

@JeffreySarnoff, @dpsanders (cc @ashton314) thank you for volunteering as reviewers! 🙏 I'll be the editor handling this submission and you can ask me questions any time.

For start, you can generate your reviewer checklist by commenting

@editorialbot generate my checklist

(do not include other text in the message where you run that command)

Note: In this submission, the paper is in its own repository instead of being in the software repository. This is allowed. You can find the software here: https://github.com/utahplt/FloatTracker.jl

As you go through the checklist, you can leave your review comments either as issues in the paper/software repository or directly here. If you have any questions, ping me

[JeffreySarnoff]

Review checklist for @JeffreySarnoff

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JuliaCon conflict of interest policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JCon for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JuliaCon code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/utahplt/juliacon2023-paper?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@ashton314) made major 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?
• 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 what problems the software is designed to solve 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 (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)?
• 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

Paper format

• Authors: Does the paper.tex file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• 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, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Content

• Context: is the scientific context motivating the work correctly presented?
• Methodology: is the approach taken in the work justified, presented with enough details and reference to reproduce it?
• Results: are the results presented and compared to approaches with similar goals?

[JeffreySarnoff]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[JeffreySarnoff]

Is there an approved way to leave notes. For example, while there is no section titled 'Statement of need' The Abstract does cover the need. I do not know if this suffice; it does seem appropriate to mention.

…

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 3:09 AM The Open Journals editorial robot < ***@***.***> wrote: 👉📄 Download article proof <https://raw.githubusercontent.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/jcon.00148/jcon.00148/10.21105.jcon.00148.pdf> 📄 View article proof on GitHub <https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/blob/jcon.00148/jcon.00148/10.21105.jcon.00148.pdf> 📄 👈 — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#148 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAM2VRQHWSYSHU566GMWOM3Y7H4TLAVCNFSM6AAAAABGZI7626VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANZYG43DGNJYHE> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[lucaferranti]

You can add notes as comment in this thread. When I've reviewed, I generally collect all my notes/feedback in a single comment which I post in the review issue (this one). If you want to recommend changes in the paper / code you can also directly open issues in the repositories. In that case, please do mention this issue also there.

For your question of the statement of need. It is not strictly necassary to have a section with that name, but there should be a clear motivation for the software and the problem it is trying to solve. If you feel this is well described in the abstract/introduction, then you can tick the box

[JeffreySarnoff]

I am quizzical. The checklist is written for papers that are all about a Julia repository. FlowFPX is the "hook" yet there is no FlowFPX.jl afaik. I do see that this is a toolkit, still, having FlowFPX.jl that has the individual tools as [deps] (or subsets) along with a place for the docs to live together would be nice. Meanwhile -- I don't know what to do with the unchecked boxes .. they seem not applicable or to be considered at a later evolution. Nonetheless I appreciate the capabilities you have made available.

[bennn]

Great point, there really should be a FlowFPX repo that brings the toolbox together. We'll see what we can do. (Unfortunately, all the students involved have graduated or moved on since JuliaCon'23.)

[bennn]

The best we can do now is a loose coupling, basically with a readme. Putting at all together in a robust-cross-platform Julia package is tough because the different components of FlowFPX use different languages & hardware (C for CSTGs, Nvidia GPUs for GPUFPX).

[JeffreySarnoff]

That is all I had expected

…

On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 1:48 PM Ben Greenman ***@***.***> wrote: The best we can do now is a loose coupling, basically with a readme. Putting at all together in a robust-cross-platform Julia package is tough because the different components of FlowFPX use different languages & hardware (C for CSTGs, Nvidia GPUs for GPUFPX). — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#148 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAM2VRXH4WJH4P577XH74RTZES7QHAVCNFSM6AAAAABGZI7626VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMZVHAYDKMJUHA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[bennn]

Added a landing page link to the paper: https://utahplt.github.io/flowfpx

[bennn]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[lucaferranti]

Hi @dpsanders 👋 ,

were you able to start the review? Any projected timeline for it?

[dpsanders]

Apologies, not yet. I hope to get to it soon.

[ashton314]

@lucaferranti  are you really not seeing tag 2.1.0? It's here for me.

[lucaferranti]

Yeah I don't see it 🤔

also the Project.toml of the library on main seems to be on 2.0.0 and inded if I do add TrackedFloats in a clean environmen it installs 2.0.0

[lucaferranti]

ok there is a 2.1.0 tag, but that does not corresponds to the software version it seems?

[ashton314]

We're just using tags; no GitHub releases

[ashton314]

@lucaferranti I fixed the version in Project.toml; I had to bump the tag to 2.1.1. Release here

[lucaferranti]

Great! Thank you for fixing it. Did you register the version 2.1.0 ? add TrackedFloats installs version 2.0.0

[ashton314]

I'm relearning how to submit a new version to JuliaHub—it's been a while.

[ashton314]

Is there a way to ask JuliaHub to pull the most recent version from the UI? Where are the docs on this? I can only find the docs for submitting a new package.

[lucaferranti]

Is there a way to ask JuliaHub to pull the most recent version from the UI? Where are the docs on this? I can only find the docs for submitting a new package.

I use JuliaRegistrator via github to manage package versions. To make a new release, I just comment @JuliaRegistrator register on a commit and that releases the new version (creates PR to general registry). I've actually never used the juliahub web interface, so unfortunately I don't know the answer to that.

Maybe ask on the julia slack? helpdesk or pkg-registration are probably good channels for that

[lucaferranti]

Hi @ashton314 👋 ,

any luck with getting the new version released? this is the very last step before getting this finally published :)

[ashton314]

I tried but it's still not working and I lost gumption/had to move to something else.

[ashton314]

I think it merged! JuliaRegistries/General#122091

I don't see the update on JuliaHub just yet… I expect it takes a minute.

[ashton314]

@lucaferranti @bennn The new version is up on JuliaHub!

[lucaferranti]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[lucaferranti]

@ashton314 great! To make sure I don't have dummy typos during the publishing process, can you post again the DOI and version of the final version?

[editorialbot]

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

[ashton314]

Here's the latest Zenodo DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14396140

I added a new version there; the only difference is the version number in the package.

Final software version is v2.1.1

[lucaferranti]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1145/103162.103163 is OK
- 10.1109/IEEESTD.1985.82928 is OK
- 10.1029/2020MS002246 is OK
- 10.1145/3316279.3316281 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2014.90 is OK
- 10.1145/3579990.3580020 is OK
- 10.11588/ans.2015.100.20553 is OK
- 10.1145/3324989.3325721 is OK
- 10.1145/2998441 is OK
- 10.1515/jnum-2012-0013 is OK
- 10.1145/3330345.3330346 is OK
- 10.1016/j.parco.2021.102870 is OK
- 10.1002/0471028959 is OK
- 10.1109/Correctness56720.2022.00006 is OK
- 10.1109/Correctness54621.2021.00007 is OK
- 10.1145/3520313.3534655 is OK
- 10.1109/XLOOP56614.2022.00010 is OK
- 10.1145/3588195.3592991 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02018 is OK
- 10.1109/ASE.2019.00118 is OK
- 10.1109/IISWC55918.2022.00014 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.5115765 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2014.11 is OK
- 10.1145/2737924.2737959 is OK
- 10.1145/3586183.3606819 is OK
- 10.1109/IPDPS.2007.370254 is OK
- 10.1109/MC.2019.2926614 is OK
- 10.1145/3369583.3392673 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-76526-6 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2209.05433 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Handling IEEE 754 Invalid Operation Exceptions in ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Low-Precision Climate Computing: Preserving Inform...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: OrdinaryDiffEq.jl
- No DOI given, and none found for title: DUNE Numerics
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Open Source Reports
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Issue Search: \textttNaN+infinity
- No DOI given, and none found for title: IEEE Working Group P3109 Interim Report on 8-bit B...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.2307/2317055 may be a valid DOI for title: The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 2: Seminum...

❌ INVALID DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-031-08751-6\_9 URL is INVALID

[lucaferranti]

@editorialbot set v2.1.1 as version

[editorialbot]

Done! version is now v2.1.1

[lucaferranti]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.14396140 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.14396140

[lucaferranti]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1145/103162.103163 is OK
- 10.1109/IEEESTD.1985.82928 is OK
- 10.1029/2020MS002246 is OK
- 10.1145/3316279.3316281 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2014.90 is OK
- 10.1145/3579990.3580020 is OK
- 10.11588/ans.2015.100.20553 is OK
- 10.1145/3324989.3325721 is OK
- 10.1145/2998441 is OK
- 10.1515/jnum-2012-0013 is OK
- 10.1145/3330345.3330346 is OK
- 10.1016/j.parco.2021.102870 is OK
- 10.1002/0471028959 is OK
- 10.1109/Correctness56720.2022.00006 is OK
- 10.1109/Correctness54621.2021.00007 is OK
- 10.1145/3520313.3534655 is OK
- 10.1109/XLOOP56614.2022.00010 is OK
- 10.1145/3588195.3592991 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02018 is OK
- 10.1109/ASE.2019.00118 is OK
- 10.1109/IISWC55918.2022.00014 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.5115765 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2014.11 is OK
- 10.1145/2737924.2737959 is OK
- 10.1145/3586183.3606819 is OK
- 10.1109/IPDPS.2007.370254 is OK
- 10.1109/MC.2019.2926614 is OK
- 10.1145/3369583.3392673 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-76526-6 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2209.05433 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Handling IEEE 754 Invalid Operation Exceptions in ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Low-Precision Climate Computing: Preserving Inform...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: OrdinaryDiffEq.jl
- No DOI given, and none found for title: DUNE Numerics
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Open Source Reports
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Issue Search: \textttNaN+infinity
- No DOI given, and none found for title: IEEE Working Group P3109 Interim Report on 8-bit B...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.2307/2317055 may be a valid DOI for title: The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 2: Seminum...

❌ INVALID DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-031-08751-6\_9 URL is INVALID

[editorialbot]

👋 @JuliaCon/jcon-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in JuliaCon/proceedings-papers#117, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[lucaferranti]

@ashton314 we should be ready to go. Please have a final look at the paper pdf and if/when everything looks good, ping me and I'll complete the acceptance.

[ashton314]

Looks good to me. @bennn want to take a final look?