DevNotes_29Jul2025

General updates

• Next contributor camp planning - https://indico.ess.eu/event/3800/overview
• Hybrid SasView Tutorial with Munich (Oct 23/24?)
• Technical group still meeting but every other week on alternate weeks to regular developer meeting

Questions from Help desk

• Batch fitting is broken (https://github.com/SasView/sasview/issues/3543)

Status updates of ongoing projects

• Two Yukawa S(Q) (Yun/Paul K.)
• Shape2SAS (Kristian)
• CI automation (Jeff/James)
• CodeScene and Ruff (Paul S./Jeff)
• Refactoring Project (James/Lucas/Adam/Jeff)

Release work

• 6.1.1 release updates (James)
  • Proposed code freeze date: 15th August (PRs should be merged by the end of the day).
  • Final release: By the 22nd August, which is James' last day.
  • Expectation is that no new features will be needing to be merged to main before mid-August
    • merge all 6.1.1 PRs to main
  • Issues and PRs labelled 6.1.1:
    • 25 Issues: https://github.com/SasView/sasview/issues?q=state%3Aopen%20label%3A%22SasView%206.1.1%22%20is%3Aissue
    • 7 PRs: https://github.com/SasView/sasview/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22SasView+6.1.1%22
  • Currently expecting no changes to sasmodels or sasdata

Discussions items

• Dependabot issues
  • Three PR options put forward: Move release requirements files, disable dependabot, delete release requirements files
  • Technical meeting suggestion: Disable Dependabot (https://github.com/SasView/sasview/pull/3517)
• Citing SasView (and sasmodels? and sasdata?)
  • https://www.sasview.org/cite/
  • Correct the Zenodo records to match SasView? Zenodo currently Adams, et. al., but SasView giives Doucet, et. al.
• Providing independent DOI's for every individual sasview products (sasmodels, sasdata, sascalc? etc?)
  • There is a proposal on the table to do this (sasmodels issue #650)
    • Discussion of benefits, costs and contraindications
• Ordering on the author list.
  • Currently it is alphabetical. However this is not spelled out in the agreed policy (https://github.com/SasView/sasview/wiki/contribution_acknowledgments) and is further violated in the recommended citation in the app
    • latest proposal (to be used for 6.1.1?):
      • The release manager's name is first
      • Followed by contributors who have made a contribution in any prior release in alphabetical order
    • Discussion: benefits, costs and contraindications
• Code Quality
  • Reminder: Current Rules
  • Ruff, using pre-commit, is integrated into CI - Currently applying new rules to entire codebase
  • CodeScene integrated into SasData as a start using the most basic rules - Extend to sasmodels and sasview post 6.1.1 release

DOI Discussion Notes from July 15, 2025:

• It is pointed out that Zenodo provides a separate project DOI
• Two purposes identified for DOI: as the identifier of the code used and as recognition of the people who worked on it
  • PK points out that DOI is imperfect as an identifier and that the commit hash is the only sure method
  • Not clear how practical the above would be. DOI seems to be used for the purpose these days?
• The separate SasView products (sasmodels etc) are used independently, sometimes as downstream dependencies so a separate DOI seems reasonable? However, for strict recognition purposes the general SasView project DOI should suffice? No clear consensus
• Jeff withdraws his proposal for separating the creator list into two alphabetical lists based on active work during current release cycle.
• Jeff suggests we implement his proposal to make the release manager name as the first author - there seems to be some consensus on that? Certainly the current citation suggestion in "cite SasView" needs to be changed.

PRs

• https://github.com/SasView/sasview/labels/Discuss%20At%20The%20Call
• https://github.com/SasView/sasmodels/labels/Discuss%20At%20The%20Call
• https://github.com/SasView/sasdata/labels/Discuss%20At%20The%20Call
• Any others?

AOB?