[JOSS] Review checklist

[jrkerns]

From the JOSS review checklist there are a few items that appear missing or incomplete. I also have a "wishlist" item that is not in the checklist but would really be nice.

• "Automated tests" - I have the same problem of running the tests standalone as [JOSS] Trouble running tests on macOS #73 . README.md appears to exist but I couldn't get it to work w/o setting package-mode=false. Odd.
• "Community guidelines" - Although it's likely obvious given it's Github, there is no explicit mention for items 2 and 3: how to report issues and seek support.
• "Example usage" - The example documentation is a good start. It would be even more helpful IMO to have a docker compose setup for a demo. Looking at the current compose file it seems it's solely focused on tests. Perhaps either move the existing compose file into /tests and provide a user-facing compose file that will start an Orthanc server or give instructions on how to use the existing compose file (orthanc2?). Given the primary purpose is interfacing with Orthanc having a quick way to spin up Orthanc would really help newbies.
• "Statement of need": The overview is relatively focused, however "who the target audience is" seems to not quite be addressed IMO. "Those unfamiliar with RESTful APIs" is pretty broad. It would be helpful to list clinical roles who might benefit from this library.
• "Functionality documentation" - While a bit of tangent and wishlist-y, having used the library for a while, it would really benefit from a table similar to the Orthanc REST cheat sheet to show which method/function corresponds to the given Orthanc cheat sheet. I've used that cheat sheet on many occasions and it is nice to know what the capability is. After that, finding the relevant pyorthanc method/function is not directly available and requires a bit of poking around. A lot of your potential users are likely familiar with the existing Orthanc API and cheat sheet.
• "Quality of writing" - There are several acronyms that are not explained that are not common to a general audience: CT, PACS, DIMSE.

[gacou54]

Thanks for the checklist, I will address each point:

• "Automated tests" (fix in ✨ Update client to follow Orthanc 12.5 (API version 26) #71 )
• "Community guidelines" I added more details on contribution/reporting a issue/asking a question in the README and documentation in 📝 Improving documentation #72
• "Example usage" Good point, I added examples in /examples and modified the docker-compose in this PR 📝 Improving documentation #72
• "Statement of need" indeed, will be better in next doc release 📝 Improving documentation #72
• "Functionality documentation" I agree, making a good documentation is quite difficult considering the amount of Orthanc functionality.
• "Quality of writing" I made a few change in the paper where I write acronyms in full. I do have the impression that those interested in medical image servers would already at least an idea of ​​these concepts.