View source for Einstein Toolkit Seminar Proposals

You can use this page to propose and discuss topics for future Einstein Toolkit Seminars. Please don't just put up a paper number, but also (briefly) describe what a paper is about. A seminar does not need to be about a published paper; just ignore columns if they are not applicable.

{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
! Topic
! Presenter
! Summary
! Paper link
|-
| ET Developer survey (from 2017) results
| Nasir Eisty
| Background: Research software is software developed by and/or used by researchers, across a wide variety of domains, to perform their research. Because of the complexity of research software, developers cannot conduct exhaustive testing. As a result, researchers have lower confidence in the correctness of the output of the software. Peer code review, a standard software engineering practice, has helped address this problem in other types of software. Aims: Peer code review is less prevalent in research software than it is in other types of software. In addition, the literature does not contain any studies about the use of peer code review in research software. Therefore, through analyzing developers perceptions, the goal of this work is to understand the current practice of peer code review in the development of research software, identify challenges and barriers associated with peer code review in research software, and present approaches to improve the peer code review in research software. Method: We conducted interviews and a community survey of research software developers to collect information about their current peer code review practices, difficulties they face, and how they address those difficulties. Results: We received 84 unique responses from the interviews and surveys. The results show that while research software teams review a large amount of their code, they lack formal process, proper organization, and adequate people to perform the reviews. Conclusions: Use of peer code review is promising for improving the quality of research software and thereby improving the trustworthiness of the underlying research results. In addition, by using peer code review, research software developers produce more readable and understandable code, which will be easier to maintain. 
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.10971 http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/pipermail/users/2021-December/008327.html
|-
| NRPy+ high level tutorial
| Steven R. Brandt
| Demonstrating how to construct a full Cactus thorn using a high level interface to NRPy+
| 
|-
| Simfactory cluster setup
| Roland Haas
| Setting up simfactory on a new cluster can be difficult since it adds a layer of abstraction on top of the cluster's queuing system.
| 
|-
| Kuibit tutorial
| Gabriele Bozzola
| Kuibit is part of 2021_11 and thus should be promoted if possible
| https://sbozzolo.github.io/kuibit/
|-
| 3D Visualization and movies
| ?
| Producing images and movies with VisIt
|
|-
| 2D/3D Visualization
| ?
| Producing images and movies with Mathematica
|
|-
| Three-Dimensional General-Relativistic Hydrodynamic Simulations of Binary Neutron Star Coalescence and Stellar Collapse with Multipatch Grids
| TBD
| GRHD-Multipatch
| 
|}