docs: JOSS paper

[APN-Pucky]

Closes: #320

[github-actions]

🏎️ Benchmark Comparison

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- benchmark: 4 tests --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name (time in ms)                                   Min                   Max                  Mean             StdDev                Median                IQR            Outliers     OPS            Rounds  Iterations
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
test_count_events_benchmark (0002_mr)          412.2818 (1.0)        419.1146 (1.0)        414.3623 (1.0)       2.2703 (1.40)       413.7778 (1.0)       2.2787 (1.0)           2;1  2.4133 (1.0)          10           1
test_count_events_benchmark (0001_base)        417.5191 (1.01)       422.0979 (1.01)       419.9570 (1.01)      1.6183 (1.0)        420.0113 (1.02)      2.2795 (1.00)          4;0  2.3812 (0.99)         10           1
test_fromfile_and_to_awkward (0002_mr)       4,010.7999 (9.73)     4,088.3593 (9.75)     4,047.0570 (9.77)     24.7594 (15.30)    4,046.8633 (9.78)     45.4094 (19.93)         2;0  0.2471 (0.10)         10           1
test_fromfile_and_to_awkward (0001_base)     4,092.5655 (9.93)     4,147.8314 (9.90)     4,114.2807 (9.93)     17.0096 (10.51)    4,114.5110 (9.94)     24.9604 (10.95)         3;0  0.2431 (0.10)         10           1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legend:
  Outliers: 1 Standard Deviation from Mean; 1.5 IQR (InterQuartile Range) from 1st Quartile and 3rd Quartile.
  OPS: Operations Per Second, computed as 1 / Mean

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (e6b34fb) to head (f783ed7).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main      #337   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files            2         2           
  Lines          509       509           
=========================================
  Hits           509       509           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests-3.10	100.00% <ø> (ø)
unittests-3.11	100.00% <ø> (ø)
unittests-3.12	100.00% <ø> (ø)
unittests-3.13	100.00% <ø> (ø)
unittests-3.14	100.00% <ø> (ø)
unittests-3.9	100.00% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[matthewfeickert]

👋 Let me know if you would like any reviews of this in advance, as I obviously won't be able to serve as the JOSS editor for this submission. :)

[eduardo-rodrigues]

Hi @APN-Pucky. I left a few little suggestions. I found the paper in excellent shape. Seems you can submit next week to start it nicely 👍!

Thank you for this work!

[APN-Pucky]

Seems you can submit next week to start it nicely 👍!

Thank you for your reviews. I will probably merge this before I submit it, because then the official RTD are also updated for the review. Maybe even a 1.0.2 release for the typing change (#341).

[matthewfeickert]

Thank you for your reviews. I will probably merge this before I submit it, because then the official RTD are also updated for the review.

I think that would be great, as having updated documentation is a huge benefit in these reviews.

Maybe even a 1.0.2 release for the typing change (#341).

While not necessary, that would be nice for the reviewers as if things are well typed then when reviewing use in code that is an improvement for them.