GALFITools: a library for GALFIT

[canorve]

Submitting Author: (@canorve)
All current maintainers: (@canorve)
Package Name: GALFITools
One-Line Description of Package: A library for efficient data processing customized for the GALFIT package
Repository Link: https://github.com/canorve/GALFITools
Version submitted: v1.15.0
EiC: @SimonMolinsky, @coatless
Editor: @hamogu
Reviewer 1: @Jammy2211
Reviewer 2: TBD
Archive: TBD
JOSS DOI: TBD
Version accepted: TBD
Date accepted (month/day/year): TBD

---

Code of Conduct & Commitment to Maintain Package

• I agree to abide by pyOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package after should it be accepted.
• I have read and will commit to package maintenance after the review as per the pyOpenSci Policies Guidelines.

Description

• Include a brief paragraph describing what your package does:

GALFIT, a well-established two-dimensional image fitting algorithm (Peng et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 266), is integral to precise modeling of galaxy surface brightness in astronomical images. To optimize GALFIT's utility, GALFITools provides a suite of Python routines that streamline input and output parsing for enhanced efficiency and usability.

Scope

• Please indicate which category or categories.
  Check out our package scope page to learn more about our
  scope. (If you are unsure of which category you fit, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry):

  • Data retrieval
  • Data extraction
  • Data processing/munging
  • Data deposition
  • Data validation and testing
  • Data visualization¹
  • Workflow automation
  • Citation management and bibliometrics
  • Scientific software wrappers
  • Database interoperability

Domain Specific

• Geospatial
• Education

Community Partnerships

If your package is associated with an
existing community please check below:

• Astropy:My package adheres to Astropy community standards
• Pangeo: My package adheres to the Pangeo standards listed in the pyOpenSci peer review guidebook

• For all submissions, explain how and why the package falls under the categories you indicated above. In your explanation, please address the following points (briefly, 1-2 sentences for each):

GALFITools enhances functionality with a range of features, including mask creation, PSF generation, initial parameter estimation, galaxy image model visualizaton, multigaussian expansion (MGE) fitting, and calculation of sky background along with other key photometric parameters.

• Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?
  This a tool for astronomers to streamline image data processing and enhance interpretation of GALFIT outputs

• Are there other Python packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ?
  No, similar tools act as GALFIT wrappers but focus on different objectives, such as automating GALFIT for large galaxy samples.

• If you made a pre-submission enquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted:

#216

Technical checks

For details about the pyOpenSci packaging requirements, see our packaging guide. Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:

• does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
• uses an OSI approved license.
• contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
• includes documentation with examples for all functions.
• contains a tutorial with examples of its essential functions and uses.
• has a test suite.
• has continuous integration setup, such as GitHub Actions CircleCI, and/or others.

Publication Options

• Do you wish to automatically submit to the Journal of Open Source Software? If so:

JOSS Checks

• The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements. Be aware that completing the pyOpenSci review process does not guarantee acceptance to JOSS. Be sure to read their submission requirements (linked above) if you are interested in submitting to JOSS.
• The package is not a "minor utility" as defined by JOSS's submission requirements: "Minor ‘utility’ packages, including ‘thin’ API clients, are not acceptable." pyOpenSci welcomes these packages under "Data Retrieval", but JOSS has slightly different criteria.
• The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with a high-level description in the package root or in inst/.
• The package is deposited in a long-term repository with the DOI:
  https://zenodo.org/records/13994492

Note: JOSS accepts our review as theirs. You will NOT need to go through another full review. JOSS will only review your paper.md file. Be sure to link to this pyOpenSci issue when a JOSS issue is opened for your package. Also be sure to tell the JOSS editor that this is a pyOpenSci reviewed package once you reach this step.

Are you OK with Reviewers Submitting Issues and/or pull requests to your Repo Directly?

This option will allow reviewers to open smaller issues that can then be linked to PR's rather than submitting a more dense text based review. It will also allow you to demonstrate addressing the issue via PR links.

• Yes I am OK with reviewers submitting requested changes as issues to my repo. Reviewers will then link to the issues in their submitted review.

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

• I have read the author guide.
• I expect to maintain this package for at least 2 years and can help find a replacement for the maintainer (team) if needed.

Please fill out our survey

• Last but not least please fill out our pre-review survey. This helps us track
  submission and improve our peer review process. We will also ask our reviewers
  and editors to fill this out.

P.S. Have feedback/comments about our review process? Leave a comment here

Editor and Review Templates

The editor template can be found here.

The review template can be found here.

Footnotes

1. Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package. ↩

[SimonMolinsky]

Editor in Chief checks

Hi there! Thank you for submitting your package for pyOpenSci
review. Below are the basic checks that your package needs to pass
to begin our review. If some of these are missing, we will ask you
to work on them before the review process begins.

Please check our Python packaging guide for more information on the elements
below.

• Installation The package can be installed from a community repository such as PyPI (preferred), and/or a community channel on conda (e.g. conda-forge, bioconda).
  • The package imports properly into a standard Python environment import package.
• Fit The package meets criteria for fit and overlap.
• Documentation The package has sufficient online documentation to allow us to evaluate package function and scope without installing the package. This includes:
  • User-facing documentation that overviews how to install and start using the package.
  • Short tutorials that help a user understand how to use the package and what it can do for them.
  • API documentation (documentation for your code's functions, classes, methods and attributes): this includes clearly written docstrings with variables defined using a standard docstring format.
• Core GitHub repository Files
  • README The package has a README.md file with clear explanation of what the package does, instructions on how to install it, and a link to development instructions.
  • Contributing File The package has a CONTRIBUTING.md file that details how to install and contribute to the package.
  • Code of Conduct The package has a CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md file.
  • License The package has an OSI approved license.
    NOTE: We prefer that you have development instructions in your documentation too.
• Issue Submission Documentation All of the information is filled out in the YAML header of the issue (located at the top of the issue template).
• Automated tests Package has a testing suite and is tested via a Continuous Integration service.
• Repository The repository link resolves correctly.
• Package overlap The package doesn't entirely overlap with the functionality of other packages that have already been submitted to pyOpenSci.
• Archive (JOSS only, may be post-review): The repository DOI resolves correctly.
• Version (JOSS only, may be post-review): Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?

---

• Initial onboarding survey was filled out
  We appreciate each maintainer of the package filling out this survey individually. 🙌
  Thank you authors in advance for setting aside five to ten minutes to do this. It truly helps our organization. 🙌

---

---

Editor comments

@canorve I've checked your package and have two issues that should be addressed before we assign the editor and reviewers:

1. You have provided documentation, but I see only raw rst files. Have you built docs somewhere? Do you have a link to the build docs? Here is the guide that might help you: https://www.pyopensci.org/python-package-guide/documentation/hosting-tools/intro.html
2. Are your tests automated? Have you considered using GitHub Actions for this? Here's an example of how to set up automated tests: https://www.pyopensci.org/python-package-guide/tests/tests-ci.html

We will go forward with the review when you address those two points!

[SimonMolinsky]

@canorve

Here are my comments:

I've checked your package and have two issues that should be addressed before we assign the editor and reviewers:

1. You have provided documentation, but I see only raw rst files. Have you built docs somewhere? Do you have a link to the build docs? Here is the guide that might help you: https://www.pyopensci.org/python-package-guide/documentation/hosting-tools/intro.html
2. Are your tests automated? Have you considered using GitHub Actions for this? Here's an example of how to set up automated tests: https://www.pyopensci.org/python-package-guide/tests/tests-ci.html
   We will go forward with the review when you address those two points!

[SimonMolinsky]

Hi @canorve

How are you? Could you tell me how updating documentation and automated tests is going?

[canorve]

Hello @SimonMolinsky,

The documentation and GitHub Actions are new to me, but I'm working on them. The GitHub Actions workflow is already implemented, though I'm not sure if it's working properly. Currently, I'm following the Read the Docs documentation.

[canorve]

Dear @SimonMolinsky, I have completed the documentation, which is hosted at GALFITools Documentation.

Additionally, GitHub Actions for automated tests have been implemented and tested.

I am now ready for feedback on both the documentation and the code

[SimonMolinsky]

Hi @canorve !

Sorry for the delay. I'm not as available as I would like to be! I've checked your docs and found one broken link under here—there is a typo in a link path, with an additional / after .html. Just remove it, and it will work fine.

First of all, install [GALFIT](https://users.obs.carnegiescience.edu/peng/work/galfit/galfit.html) if you haven’t done so. Check instructions [here](https://users.obs.carnegiescience.edu/peng/work/galfit/galfit.html/). Make sure that GALFIT can run in any path in your linux/macOS terminal.

GitHub Actions work, your documentation, especially the API description, is ready, and you have fulfilled all EiC checks. We can move forward with the review!

[canorve]

Don't worry, I appreciate your time in reviewing it. Thanks for informing me about the broken link; it has now been corrected.

[lwasser]

hi colleagues! I noticed this has the astropy check on it. I"ve alerted the current astropy editors of that fact so it can be considered for astropy affiliation in the review. Someone from the astropy editorial team will be in touch about the next steps. 🚀

@SimonMolinsky thank you so much for continuing to work on this submission 💓 You are so appreciated here.

[coatless]

@SimonMolinsky I'll handle this submission going forward. Thank you again for everything!

@canorve sorry for the delay in moving this forward. I've gone ahead and assigned @hamogu as the editor for the submission as it meets all of our requirements.

I will note that there are scientific similarities with PyAutoGalaxy that is also now under review; but, fundamentally the software is different in the underlying implementation and front facing uses.

[hamogu]

Editor response to review:

Hi @SimonMolinsky ! Thanks for submitting your package to PyOpenSci. I'll be your editor - please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you might have. I'll now start to look for reviewers; usually that's the most time-consuming part of the process but I'll keep you updated as that goes along!

---

Editor comments

👋 Hi @Jammy2211 and @reviewer-two! Thank you for volunteering to review
for pyOpenSci!

Please fill out our pre-review survey

Before beginning your review, please fill out our pre-review survey. This helps us improve all aspects of our review and better understand our community. No personal data will be shared from this survey - it will only be used in an aggregated format by our Executive Director to improve our processes and programs.

• reviewer 1 survey completed.
• reviewer 2 survey completed.
• reviewer 3 (if applicable)

The following resources will help you complete your review:

1. Here is the reviewers guide. This guide contains all of the steps and information needed to complete your review.
2. Here is the review template that you will need to fill out and submit
   here as a comment, once your review is complete.

Please get in touch with any questions or concerns! Your review is due:

Reviewers: @Jammy2211
Due date:

[hamogu]

@canorve : You indicated that you intend to have this package also submitted to JOSS by setting the tick mark in the submission. As you may know, the review we do will automatically be accepted as the review by JOSS; they will only do some editorial stuff, but not look at the package again. That means that the reviewers here also need to look at the paper.md that JOSS will publish. Could you point us to where we find that paper in your repro? (See links to JOSS documentation in the first post in this thread for details).

[canorve]

Thank you for pointing this out. I will review the JOSS documentation and upload the paper.md file to the repository at my earliest convenience. Once uploaded, I will notify you here.

[hamogu]

Dear @canorve, I'm just putting a "pending-maintainer-response" label on this issue for now to mark that we are waiting for the paper.md to review before we proceed. No rush - I just want to make sure that people who look at this issue don't get confused why the review has not started yet.