[REVIEW]: MQT Core: The Backbone of the Munich Quantum Toolkit (MQT)

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @burgholzer (Lukas Burgholzer)
Repository: https://github.com/cda-tum/mqt-core
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper
Version: v2.7.0
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewers: @1ucian0, @edyounis, @josh146
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c90c6b84d6b4227af9d7219c51a9410a"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c90c6b84d6b4227af9d7219c51a9410a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c90c6b84d6b4227af9d7219c51a9410a/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c90c6b84d6b4227af9d7219c51a9410a)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@1ucian0 & @edyounis & @josh146, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @danielskatz know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @1ucian0

📝 Checklist for @josh146

📝 Checklist for @edyounis

[editorialbot]

Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1109/TCAD.2020.3032630 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-79837-6_14 is OK
- 10.23919/DATE54114.2022.9774631 is OK
- 10.1109/QCE52317.2021.00037 is OK
- 10.1109/ASP-DAC47756.2020.9045153 is OK
- 10.1109/ASP-DAC52403.2022.9712555 is OK
- 10.1109/DAC18072.2020.9218563 is OK
- 10.1145/3394885.3431590 is OK
- 10.1109/TCAD.2022.3197969 is OK
- 10.1109/QCE49297.2020.00051 is OK
- 10.1145/3505636 is OK
- 10.22331/q-2020-06-04-279 is OK
- 10.1109/VLSID57277.2023.00068 is OK
- 10.1145/3400302.3415622 is OK
- 10.1109/TCAD.2022.3182628 is OK
- 10.23919/DATE51398.2021.9474135 is OK
- 10.23919/DATE51398.2021.9474034 is OK
- 10.1145/3530776 is OK
- 10.1109/ASP-DAC47756.2020.9045711 is OK
- 10.1145/3394885.3431604 is OK
- 10.1109/DAC18072.2020.9218555 is OK
- 10.1109/QCE57702.2023.00095 is OK
- 10.1145/3489517.3530480 is OK
- 10.1145/3566097.3567932 is OK
- 10.1109/JETCAS.2022.3202204 is OK
- 10.1145/3593594 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2405.08810 is OK
- 10.1109/QCE57702.2023.00039 is OK
- 10.1088/2058-9565/ad33ac is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2311.14164 is OK
- 10.1145/3566097.3567929 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2012.13966 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-15699-1_1 is OK
- 10.1109/ISCAS45731.2020.9180791 is OK
- 10.1109/QSW62656.2024.00013 is OK
- 10.1145/3491246 is OK
- 10.1007/978-981-15-6401-7_43-1 is OK
- 10.23919/DATE51398.2021.9474236 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.17 s (1657.4 files/s, 333624.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                            120           3917           1474          27688
C/C++ Header                    84           2025           2159          11392
Python                          16           1011           1719           2172
CMake                           32            218            219           1125
Markdown                        14            327              0            837
YAML                            13             50             44            586
TeX                              2             37              0            318
TOML                             1             43              7            254
JSON                             3              0              0            185
HTML                             1              0              0             76
CSS                              1              4              2             47
JSON5                            1              0              1             37
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           288           7632           5625          44717
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   951	Lukas Burgholzer
   403	burgholzer
   329	dependabot[bot]
   121	Tom Peham
   116	pre-commit-ci[bot]
    76	Yannick Stade
    55	Stefan Hillmich
    34	renovate[bot]
    14	Thomas Grurl
    14	pehamTom
     7	Aaron Sander
     6	Martin Fink
     4	HartwigB
     4	github-actions
     4	lsschmid
     3	Berti Florea
     2	33Gjl1Xe
     2	Katrin
     2	Parham Rahimi
     2	Rebecca Ghidini
     2	TeWas
     2	Tianyi Wang
     1	Christoph Pichler
     1	Damian Rovara
     1	Elias Leon Foramitti
     1	Hartwig
     1	JoachimMarin
     1	Roope Salmi
     1	Sarah
     1	Thomas
     1	TobiasPrie
     1	p41540

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 623

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[danielskatz]

@1ucian0 & @edyounis & @josh146 - Thanks for agreeing to review this submission.
This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As you can see above, you each should use the command @editorialbot generate my checklist to create your review checklist. @editorialbot commands need to be the first thing in a new comment.

As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#7478 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if either of you require some more time. We can also use editorialbot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@danielskatz) if you have any questions/concerns.

[josh146]

Review checklist for @josh146

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/cda-tum/mqt-core?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@burgholzer) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1. Contribute to the software 2. Report issues or problems with the software 3. Seek support

Software paper

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[danielskatz]

👋 @josh146 - thanks for getting started - is there anything blocking your progress (other than time)?

[danielskatz]

👋 @1ucian0 & @edyounis - Can you also create your checklists (see #7478 (comment) for instructions) and get started with your reviews? Thanks.

[1ucian0]

Review checklist for @1ucian0

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/cda-tum/mqt-core?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@burgholzer) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1. Contribute to the software 2. Report issues or problems with the software 3. Seek support

Software paper

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[1ucian0]

As a reviewer, I would like to declare a potential conflicts of interest. I have code merged in repositories related to MQT:
https://github.com/pulls?q=author%3A1ucian0+org%3Acda-tum

All my interaction with Technical University of Munich had been as part of my work in Qiskit (MQT is a dependant of Qiskit). I personally think the level of interaction is small and, therefore, I request a waiver for the COI.

[danielskatz]

👋 @1ucian0 - thanks for letting us know about this. I agree that this is technically a conflict, but also agree that we can waive it, given the details as you mention above.

[1ucian0]

While not mandatory, it is a usual practice to have a header about the license in the files affected by it. Currently, the files do not have this header. Is it an official policy about it?

[1ucian0]

Contribution and authorship: [...] Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

While @burgholzer is the clear main maintainer of the software, I was unable to find @robertwille in the history. Additionally, @ystade seems to have been contributing significantly in the last year. I think the paper could benefit on clarifying the author contributions and the criteria for inclusion.

[burgholzer]

While not mandatory, it is a usual practice to have a header about the license in the files affected by it. Currently, the files do not have this header. Is it an official policy about it?

I'd be happy to add license headers to the project. Certainly does not hurt.

@danielskatz what's the formal procedure for updating the code for the JOSS submission here?
Tracking issue and subsequent pull request over in mqt-core and, afterwards, merging into or rebasing the branch for the JOSS submission?

[burgholzer]

Contribution and authorship: [...] Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

While @burgholzer is the clear main maintainer of the software, I was unable to find @robertwille in the history. Additionally, @ystade seems to have been contributing significantly in the last year. I think the paper could benefit on clarifying the author contributions and the criteria for inclusion.

You are definitely right, and I think it would be a good idea to update the author list for this submission. Given his significant code contributions over the past year, I would like to add Yannick to the middle of the author list.
Robert is included in the author list based on his substantial impact in shaping mqt-core and the research methods that have been developed as part or on top of mqt-core. Despite not showing up in terms of commits, the countless discussions are very much reflected in the code as it stands and the software would not exist without his support.

Edit: I'd also be happy to add a short paragraph clarifying the inclusion of authors to the paper.

@danielskatz Similar question to above: Do I simply update the joss-paper branch with the updated metadata?

[danielskatz]

@burgholzer - yes, you just update the paper content, and since we're in the middle of the review, make clear to the reviewers what changes you are making so they can factor that into their ongoing reviews.

[danielskatz]

@burgholzer - and this goes for the code as well...

[danielskatz]

👋 @edyounis - please go ahead and get started on your review when you have the chance - see above for instructions on generating your review checklist.

[edyounis]

Review checklist for @edyounis

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/cda-tum/mqt-core?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@burgholzer) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
• Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1. Contribute to the software 2. Report issues or problems with the software 3. Seek support

Software paper

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[burgholzer]

Contribution and authorship: [...] Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

While @burgholzer is the clear main maintainer of the software, I was unable to find @robertwille in the history. Additionally, @ystade seems to have been contributing significantly in the last year. I think the paper could benefit on clarifying the author contributions and the criteria for inclusion.

You are definitely right, and I think it would be a good idea to update the author list for this submission. Given his significant code contributions over the past year, I would like to add Yannick to the middle of the author list. Robert is included in the author list based on his substantial impact in shaping mqt-core and the research methods that have been developed as part or on top of mqt-core. Despite not showing up in terms of commits, the countless discussions are very much reflected in the code as it stands and the software would not exist without his support.

Based on the above, I added Yannick as a co-author in cda-tum/mqt-core@3481566

[burgholzer]

While not mandatory, it is a usual practice to have a header about the license in the files affected by it. Currently, the files do not have this header. Is it an official policy about it?

I'd be happy to add license headers to the project. Certainly does not hurt.

Added license headers to the files in cda-tum/mqt-core@c606fc0 and merged the latest main branch into the joss-paper branch in cda-tum/mqt-core@e84b179

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[danielskatz]

👋 @burgholzer - I think you were going to work on this last week? Did anything happen?

[burgholzer]

👋 @burgholzer - I think you were going to work on this last week? Did anything happen?

To be honest, not as much as I would have liked. I am on it though.

[burgholzer]

Happy new year everyone! 🎉

I am coming back here with an update on addressing the review feedback. Finally found some time to continue working on this.

@edyounis

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?

Installation went well, but it would be nice in the documentation to have a "Run this command to ensure installation worked..." I just did python -c 'import mqt' and saw no error. I don't think this is important or required, but is always nice to see.

Improved upon the installation guide in the documentation and added a respective command for ensuring that everything worked in cda-tum/mqt-core#789 ✅

@edyounis

State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?

Regarding this requirement, the paper may benefit from a related works section.

@josh146
Regarding the paper, I thought it was succinct and well written, with a clear statement of need. Based on the review checklist, it is perhaps missing a section for

State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?

@1ucian0
I second that.

I added a related work section to the JOSS paper in cda-tum/mqt-core@262fd6d ✅
Hopefully this addresses the points raised by all three reviewers.
Please let me know if you feel that the section is missing something.

@josh146
Separately, I was wondering about the inclusion of Tom Peham, who also looks to have contributed significantly, but not recently -- I assume that these code additions may not survive in the current version of MQT submitted to JOSS?

Tom indeed contributed significantly in the past. He is the creator of the ZX-calculus package that is part of MQT Core. I'd personally have no objections to including him in the list of authors. However, I find it challenging to define who should be an author on this submission and who should not. I'd have a tendency to keep the author list as it is, as these are the people who are still committed to further advancing MQT Core. Happy to adjust that though, if the reviewers have a different feeling. 🤷🏼‍♂️

@josh146
Something I struggled to understand was the notation/differentiation between the algorithmic qubit mapping, and the output measurement mapping. Maybe something that could be clarified a bit in the documentation?

I rephrased that part in the documentation as part of cda-tum/mqt-core#789. ✅
I hope this is clearer now.

@edyounis

Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?

You mentioned a ZX-calculus module in the paper, but I could not find the relevant documentation. Can you point me in the right direction?

@josh146
I also struggled to parse/fully understand the 'Benchmarking the DD Package' part of the documentation. This is partly because I was missing the context of what you use the DD package for (as decision diagrams weren't introduced in the quickstart), as well as the motivation for benchmarking (comparing changes in MQT-core, comparing changes in MQT-core workflows, etc.).

Separately, I looked though the mqt.core.dd docstrings, but couldn't find an example to showcase the decision diagram features. But perhaps I am missing something :)

I have similar questions about the ZX functionality.

In addition, a small workflow example demonstrating the ZX and DD usage would be beneficial.

I am still working towards this one. 🔴
Everything else should be adequately addressed.

[burgholzer]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[danielskatz]

👋 @1ucian0, @edyounis, @josh146 - can you check on the changes so far when you get a chance?

[danielskatz]

👋 @1ucian0, @edyounis, @josh146 - can you check on the changes so far when you get a chance? Please also add a note here that you have started.

[edyounis]

@danielskatz I have checked the changes and updated my checklist accordingly.

[danielskatz]

@edyounis - Thanks! Can you comment on what you think is needed to complete your checklist? If it makes sense, could you open an issue in the source repo about this?

[1ucian0]

@editorialbot start review

[1ucian0]

I finished my review and checked out all the items in my checklist. Thanks for the patience!

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[burgholzer]

Hey everyone 👋🏼

I have created tracking issues for the remaining open points on adding documentation for two of the subpackages of MQT Core here:

• 📝 Add documentation for ZX package cda-tum/mqt-core#813
• 📝 Add documentation for DD package cda-tum/mqt-core#814

Tom (@pehamTom), the original author of the ZX-package in MQT Core, has volunteered to write the corresponding documentation. As such, I believe it is now more than justified to include Tom in the list of authors for this submission. I have updated the metadata of the paper submission in cda-tum/mqt-core@3b09c84 and rebased the paper branch on the latest main.

@editorialbot generate pdf

[josh146]

@danielskatz I have gone over the changes and have updated my checklist.

I added a related work section to the JOSS paper in cda-tum/mqt-core@262fd6d ✅ Hopefully this addresses the points raised by all three reviewers. Please let me know if you feel that the section is missing something.

The new related work section looks great, and satisfies the State of the field requirement from the reviewing checklist 👍

I rephrased that part in the documentation as part of cda-tum/mqt-core#789. ✅ I hope this is clearer now.

This is much clearer now!

Thanks @burgholzer, once cda-tum/mqt-core#813 cda-tum/mqt-core#814 are available this will complete my review!

[danielskatz]

Thanks @josh146

[danielskatz]

@josh146 - I see one item in your checklist that still is not checked - can you check it off?

[danielskatz]

👋 @edyounis - I see a couple of items left unchecked in your checklist - can you comment on what is needed for you to check them off?

[edyounis]

I finished my review and checked all the items on the checklist.

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[danielskatz]

@edyounis - thanks very much.

(As two small points, editorialbot commands need to be the first thing in a new comment, and if you try this, you will fund that only editors can issue this command)

[edyounis]

Oh, I see. Thanks for your patience with me on this.

[danielskatz]

👋 @josh146 - I see one item in your checklist that still is not checked - can you check it off?

[josh146]

@danielskatz I've checked off my list! For this one,

Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?

it will be satisfied by the following issues being complete:

cda-tum/mqt-core#813
cda-tum/mqt-core#814

[danielskatz]

@josh146 - normally, the checklist being complete means that the publication can go forward. So I wonder if you mean that you think these 2 issues should be closed before publication in this case, which normally would be handled by not checking off the last issue until then?

[danielskatz]

👋 @josh146 - Can you me help me understand your thoughts on this, as requested above ☝

[josh146]

Hey @danielskatz, sorry for the delayed response. To clarify, I think I would like to see the resulting documentation as per those two issues before recommending publication, as those two issues are designed to address documentation shortfalls as pointed out in my original review, as well as to include Tom Peham as an author on the submission.

@burgholzer do you have an update on when those two issues would have associated PRs (I see one is already open)?

[burgholzer]

@burgholzer do you have an update on when those two issues would have associated PRs (I see one is already open)?

One is already open and being actively worked on. The other one is still on me. Given how I am currently on vacation and how next week is already quite "full", I'd say a realistic estimate is that both PRs will be done by end of the month.

[josh146]

Thanks! I would be happy to approve once I get a chance to look at those two PRs when open, so I would say no need to wait to merge them

[danielskatz]

👋 @burgholzer - are you ready to merge the 2 PRs? I think that once you do this, @josh146 can complete his review, and then we can move this forward to the acceptance and publication steps, given that the other two reviews are complete.

[burgholzer]

👋 @burgholzer - are you ready to merge the 2 PRs? I think that once you do this, @josh146 can complete his review, and then we can move this forward to the acceptance and publication steps, given that the other two reviews are complete.

Almost. I just created cda-tum/mqt-core#831, which finally adds the API documentation to the DD package.
cda-tum/mqt-core#817 adds the API documentation for the ZX-calculus package.
Both of these PRs still miss a quickstart guide for the respective datastructures, which we are about to create.
Other than that, there is only one more configuration error we are trying to track down regarding the C++ API docs build and the typical final cosmetics for the paper.