From 051e8a9c44b3212220aa77f1ae96d94b4051839b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Brigitta=20Sip=C5=91cz?= Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:18:25 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] More review point clarification Co-authored-by: Troy Raen --- notebook_review_process.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/notebook_review_process.md b/notebook_review_process.md index 417b7a1..b4c84c4 100644 --- a/notebook_review_process.md +++ b/notebook_review_process.md @@ -26,8 +26,8 @@ For authors: consider these checklists requirements for your code. - Is every function documented? - Does it follow the style guide? https://github.com/spacetelescope/style-guides/blob/master/guides/jupyter-notebooks.md - Do all code cells have corresponding narratives/comments? - - Include information about runtime on the fiducial Fornax server - - Include information about which "image" the notebook uses when logging into Fornax, ie., "Astrophysics default image" + - Include information about which server type and environment to choose when logging in to Fornax and the notebook's expected runtime given that setup. For example: + - "As of 2024 August, this notebook takes about 3 minutes to run to completion on Fornax using Server Type: 'Standard - 8GB RAM/4 CPU' and Environment: 'Default Astrophysics' (image)." - Notebook execution, error handling, etc.: - Does the notebook have a corresponding `requirements_.txt` file listing all its direct dependencies? Is it used in a commented-out cell in the notebook with `pip install -r `? - Does the notebook run end-to-end, out of the box?