search

openjournals / joss-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Software
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
721 stars 38 forks source link

[REVIEW]: OmniCV - A library for Omnidirectional Cameras #2533

Closed whedon closed 4 years ago

whedon commented 4 years ago

Submitting author: @kaustubh-sadekar (kaustubh sadekar) Repository: https://github.com/kaustubh-sadekar/OmniCV-Lib Version: v1.0 Editor: @mjsottile Reviewer: @nnadeau, @ionlights Archive: Pending

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ae3115c7075a5d80ef4b441427b62117"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ae3115c7075a5d80ef4b441427b62117/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ae3115c7075a5d80ef4b441427b62117/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ae3115c7075a5d80ef4b441427b62117)

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

@nnadeau & @ionlights, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

  1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
  2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

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

Review checklist for @nnadeau

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @ionlights

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

whedon commented 4 years ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @nnadeau, @ionlights it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

:star: Important :star:

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

  1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

watching

  1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

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

@whedon commands

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

@whedon generate pdf
whedon commented 4 years ago 
Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/978-0-387-31439-6_488 is OK
- 10.1145/3278471.3278479 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cviu.2006.06.003 is OK
- 10.1007/3-540-45053-X_29 is OK
- 10.1007/PL00013269 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1109/icra.2016.7487210 may be missing for title: Benefit of large field-of-view cameras for visual odometry
- https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20876-9_3 may be missing for title: CubemapSLAM: A Piecewise-Pinhole Monocular Fisheye SLAM System
- https://doi.org/10.1109/3dv.2018.00069 may be missing for title: The Double Sphere Camera Model
- https://doi.org/10.1109/icassp.2016.7471935 may be missing for title: A data set providing synthetic and real-world fisheye video sequences

INVALID DOIs

- None
whedon commented 4 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

mjsottile commented 4 years ago

@kaustubh-sadekar While the reviewers start to conduct their reviews, you should address the issues flagged above by the check references command regarding missing DOIs.

kaustubh-sadekar commented 4 years ago

@kaustubh-sadekar While the reviewers start to conduct their reviews, you should address the issues flagged above by the check references command regarding missing DOIs.

@mjsottile Thank you very much. I have verified all the missing DOIs and have added them to the paper.bib file.

kaustubh-sadekar commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

kaustubh-sadekar commented 4 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 4 years ago

PDF failed to compile for issue #2533 with the following error:

pandoc: getCurrentDirectory:getWorkingDirectory: does not exist (Current working directory no longer exists) Looks like we failed to compile the PDF

whedon commented 4 years ago 
Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1007/978-0-387-31439-6_488 is OK
- 10.1109/ICRA.2016.7487210 is OK
- 10.1145/3278471.3278479 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cviu.2006.06.003 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-20876-9_3 is OK
- 10.1109/3DV.2018.00069 is OK
- 10.1007/3-540-45053-X_29 is OK
- 10.1007/PL00013269 is OK
- 10.1109/ICASSP.2016.7471935 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
mjsottile commented 4 years ago

:wave: @nnadeau and @ionlights - I am checking to make sure you are able to make progress towards completing your reviews. I see that some progress is being made on issues over in the repository for the code, but please make sure to update your checklists so that I know when you have completed your reviews. If you need any assistance, please let me know.

engnadeau commented 4 years ago

@mjsottile , thanks for checking in. I'm waiting for some progress on the linked PRs/issues before completing my review.

mjsottile commented 4 years ago

:wave: @ionlights - you had mentioned that you were busy until mid-August when we opened the review, so I assume you've been busy with your pre-existing commitment. Does it look like you'll have capacity to handle the review in the not-too-distant future? No pressure to rush - I'm just checking to make sure you're still interested and available.

mjsottile commented 4 years ago

👋 @kaustubh-sadekar I wanted to check to see if you were proceeding with the changes requested as part of the review. I want to make sure the submission doesn’t go stale and get forgotten.

kaustubh-sadekar commented 4 years ago

Yes, definitely @mjsottile . I have made several changes based on valuable guidance and suggestions by @nnadeau and I am improving things further. I have also added comments on respective open issues to update about my progress. I am giving my best efforts to make all the suggested changes. Thank you very much for checking in.

engnadeau commented 4 years ago

@kaustubh-sadekar let me know when you're ready for another round of reviews 😀👍

kaustubh-sadekar commented 4 years ago

Sure. I am facing some errors with virtual environment setup and GitHub CI/CD. They should be resolved soon.

kaustubh-sadekar commented 4 years ago

@nnadeau thank you very much for the reviews, they helped me a lot to learn about testing and deployment. I have completed all the modifications based on your reviews and suggestions. So yes :+1: ... ready for the next round of reviews and looking forward to learning from them.

mjsottile commented 4 years ago

Hi @kaustubh-sadekar - I am in the process of seeking out a replacement reviewer for the second reviewer who has gone silent. I am hoping to find a responsive second reviewer soon so that your review doesn't get stuck.

engnadeau commented 4 years ago

sounds good @kaustubh-sadekar . I'll try to schedule some time this weekend to finish my review :)

kaustubh-sadekar commented 4 years ago

Hi @kaustubh-sadekar - I am in the process of seeking out a replacement reviewer for the second reviewer who has gone silent. I am hoping to find a responsive second reviewer soon so that your review doesn't get stuck.

Sure. No problem and thank you so much @mjsottile

engnadeau commented 4 years ago

@kaustubh-sadekar @mjsottile did another review pass. There are some fundamental issues to be addressed, primarily around the significance of the work. As outlined in https://github.com/kaustubh-sadekar/OmniCV-Lib/issues/32 and https://github.com/kaustubh-sadekar/OmniCV-Lib/issues/29, the code appears to mainly be conversion wrappers (e.g., X to Y). I'm not convinced that a researcher wouldn't just implement their own math/wrapper instead of pulling in an external dependency. Personally, from a software management point of view, I would need a very good value proposition of why this external project is necessary over just doing it myself.

Moreover, if the library is to live up to the statements in paper/paper.md (e.g., Quick and easy to use API [...], Detailed documentation [...], [...] easily compatible and manageable for future updates), then there are fundamental code quality updates that are also needed. Please review and address the many issues I've submitted to the repo (https://github.com/kaustubh-sadekar/OmniCV-Lib/issues?page=1&q=author%3Annadeau). I'm especially concerned about:

kaustubh-sadekar commented 4 years ago

It is completely true that the researchers who are proficient in writing quick and efficient code would be able to write not just the functionalities provided in the OmniCV package but any other functionalities required in their research. They would hardly need to depend on any external library. But, writing even a small piece of code, even for such researchers would utilize some of their productive time. Also, considering a more general perspective which includes researchers with intermediate proficiency in writing fast and efficient code, this library contains several functionalities that would save a fair amount of development time helping them to focus on other aspects of their research and hence promote the research process. The functionalities are provided in the two widely used programming languages in robotics research (Python and C++) and even examples for ROS nodes are provided to fulfill the same objective. Constant and sincere efforts have been made to improve the library respecting all the suggestions provided in the reviews. After following all the valuable suggestions provided in the review process, this library will definitely save a fair amount of development time as its final updated version would contain detailed documentation, a Make file to simplify the entry point (considering a more general perspective about the coding proficiency of a user), automated testing along with continuous integration and development workflow and code which follows all the standard coding practices. Sincere efforts will be further put in to improve the library, respecting all the suggestions provided in the review process.

mjsottile commented 4 years ago

Hello @kaustubh-sadekar,

Based on review feedback, my own examination of the submission, and a discussion with other editors, your submission unfortunately does not meet the threshold for acceptance into JOSS. There are a number of rather significant issues related to software quality and the submission does not make a clear contribution to the research software community. I hope that you take the feedback that the review process has provided and are able to refine your package. You may consider resubmitting in the future if you feel you’ve made substantial improvements such that it would meet expectations for an acceptable JOSS publication.

Thank you @nnadeau for your patient and detailed reviews - you went above and beyond in your feedback and I greatly appreciate it.

danielskatz commented 4 years ago

@whedon reject

whedon commented 4 years ago

Paper rejected.