Submission 473, Greiner-Petter/Waltenspül

[mtwente]

Pull request

Proposed changes

• add submission 473

Co-authored-by: Moritz Greiner-Petter [email protected]
Co-authored-by: Sarine Waltenspül [email protected]

Types of changes

• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
• Enhancement (non-breaking change which enhances functionality)
• Bug Fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change).

Checklist

• I have read the README document.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have mentioned all co-authors in the PR description as Co-authored-by: Name <[email protected]>.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Introduced a configuration file for Quarto to streamline manuscript publishing.
  • Added a new research submission addressing digital film collections and their scholarly significance.
  • Created bibliographic entry management in BibTeX format for enhanced citation capabilities.

• Documentation

  • Improved documentation by outlining the structure and objectives of the research project and its tools.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

This update introduces a configuration for a Quarto manuscript project and includes a new research submission on digital film collection literacy. The manuscript configuration specifies the main article and output format, while the submission elaborates on digitization challenges and innovative research tools linked to the Encyclopaedia Cinematographica. Additionally, a references file enhances the project's bibliographic management, ensuring proper citation practices.

Changes

Files	Change Summary
submissions/473/_quarto.yml	New YAML configuration for a manuscript project, specifying type, main article, and HTML format for output.
submissions/473/index.qmd	Added a research submission detailing a project on digital film collections, including abstract, author, and date.
submissions/473/references.bib	Introduced a BibTeX entry for a book chapter by Peter Galison, enhancing reference management for the project.

Poem

In the digital realm where films take flight,
New tools emerge, oh what a sight!
With quills and bytes, we craft our lore,
Digital treasures, we’ll explore more!
Hop along, dear friends, let’s celebrate,
A world of knowledge, oh, isn’t it great? 🐰✨

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
  • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between bda7dd4 and af06df8.

Files selected for processing (3)

• submissions/473/_quarto.yml (1 hunks)
• submissions/473/index.qmd (1 hunks)
• submissions/473/references.bib (1 hunks)

Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)

• submissions/473/_quarto.yml
• submissions/473/references.bib

Additional comments not posted (4)

submissions/473/index.qmd (4)

1-24: Metadata section looks well-structured.

The metadata section is correctly formatted and includes all necessary information such as submission ID, categories, title, authors, keywords, abstract, date, and bibliography. Ensure that the ORCID IDs and email addresses are accurate and that the bibliography file references.bib is present in the project.

---

20-21: Abstract is clear and informative.

The abstract provides a comprehensive overview of the research project, its historical context, and its objectives. It is well-written and free of grammatical errors.

---

26-46: Main content is well-organized and detailed.

The main content effectively discusses the challenges and innovations in digitizing film collections. It provides a logical flow and coherence in presenting the project's objectives and developments. Ensure that all references and citations are accurate and accessible.

---

48-49: Team members section is complete.

The team members section accurately lists the contributors involved in the project. Ensure that all contributors are acknowledged appropriately.