C4dynamics submission

[C4dynamics]

Submitting Author: Ziv Meri (@C4dynamics)
All current maintainers: Ziv Meri (@C4dynamics)
Package Name: C4dynamics
One-Line Description of Package: Python framework for algorithms of dynamic systems
Repository Link: https://github.com/C4dynamics/C4dynamics
Version submitted: v2.0.0
EiC: @coatless
Editor: TBD
Reviewer 1: TBD
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:
  c4dynamics is designed to simplify the development of algorithms for dynamic systems, using state space representations. It offers engineers and researchers a systematic approach to model, simulate, and control systems in fields like robotics, aerospace, and navigation.

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):
  c4dynamics belongs to the category of math-operations and data-operations for physical models. The different data processing/munging operations are overviewed in the documentary page of the package core: [state operations] (https://c4dynamics.github.io/C4dynamics/api/States.html#operations)

  • Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?
    Researchers, engineers, and students from the fields of aerospace, robotics, navigation guidance and control.

  • Are there other Python packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ?
    For event-driven or discrete event simulation, statepy [defunct], statemachine, or transition.
    For decision-making or reinforcement learning systems, POMDPy (not maintained) and tools like transition (for FSM).

  • 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:
    c4dynamics #224 (comment)

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:

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
Looking forward working with you. Thanks!

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. ↩

[lwasser]

hey there @C4dynamics please know that we are in the process of getting the pre-review checks complete for this package and then assigning an editor! I appreciate your patience!

[crhea93]

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

The authors of this package provide very detailed documentation in the form of detailed API documentation and 3 detailed tutorials. They also have a simple to follow quick start. My only suggestion in terms of the documentation is that a lot of the really well-documented functionality is buried in links throughout the documentation. I'd suggest rethinking how the left-hand navigation panel could be redone to make it easier to access the documentation. For example, there is a really well fleshed-out page on the Rigidbody state, but, at a first glance of the documentation, it is not clear how to get there (I had to go through a few other pieces to end up there). I'd like to stress, however, that the documentation is very extensive!

A final note on documentation: I'd love to see a section breaking down the math/physics of the main concepts. Personally, that might help a user understand where to get started.

The ReadME file is very comprehensive until we reach the section entitled Block 2. It looks like the author was in the process of completing the ReadME file but did not finish this section.

The unit tests are passing (this is clear from the Github Action and the button at the top of the ReadME). However, it would be nice to see the coverage. I note that there is something happening with codedev in the Action...

[crhea93]

@C4dynamics Thank you very much for your submission! I've completed a pre-check of your package and have left a few small, but important, comments at the bottom of the comment above. Please address them at your leisure :)

Additionally, please complete the onboarding survey -- the link is in the comment above. When you've completed it, please add a comment to this issue tagging me so that I can check it off :D

[C4dynamics]

Hi @crhea93 👋

Thank you very much for your professional review!

Here are my responses to two of your four points:

1. README
   I've updated the "Block 2" section to:
   "New in Block 2
   Enhancements and modules in latest release:... "
   Let me know if that now reads smoothly and looks complete.

2. Documentation
   Regarding your feedback on navigation and clarity:
   I'm planning to add a new section called "Concepts" or "Fundamentals" before the API reference. This would centralize the key mathematical and physical ideas (like state vectors, transformations, filters, etc.) that are currently scattered across the docs.
   The idea is similar to NumPy’s Fundamentals, with conceptual overviews and links to the relevant API pages.
   Do you think this structure would help? Or maybe you have any favorite documentation site I could look at for inspiration?

Thanks again for the thoughtful feedback. 🙏

[crhea93]

@C4dynamics
Thank you for addressing those two points! The README is perfect now :)

As for the documentation, I think that would be excellent. That would certainly help readability and show off your excellent documentation.