[REVIEW]: SATLLA0: A Flight Software Platform for Aerospace and STEM Education

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ronyr@prashjha<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @nachootal, @federeghe Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8060399

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/af50648087de6186bd6eb99014658ada"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/af50648087de6186bd6eb99014658ada/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/af50648087de6186bd6eb99014658ada/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/af50648087de6186bd6eb99014658ada)

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

@nachootal & @federeghe, 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 @prashjha 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 @federeghe

📝 Checklist for @nachootal

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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 commented 1 year ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.13 s (608.3 files/s, 189830.7 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arduino Sketch                   41           2594           2622          12741
C/C++ Header                      9            316            321           1807
Python                           17            534            757           1590
Markdown                          7            112              0            567
TeX                               1              3              0             25
YAML                              1              1              4             18
Bourne Again Shell                1              1              0             15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             77           3561           3704          16763
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2927931 is OK
- 10.5028/jatm.v11.1081 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 898

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

federeghe commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @federeghe

Conflict of interest

[x] 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

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/kcglab/satllazero?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@ronyr) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] 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.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] 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

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] 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

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

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] 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?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] 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?

nachootal commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @nachootal

Conflict of interest

[x] 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

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/kcglab/satllazero?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@ronyr) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] 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.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] 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

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] 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

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

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] 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?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] 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?

federeghe commented 1 year ago

@ronyr I see that the account who made most of the commits is @ronyronen. I assume it's always you, but could you please comment here with the second account to confirm the authorship?

ronyrsim commented 1 year ago

@federeghe thanks for your review. This project is mostly done by me and Michael and is supervised by Prof. Boaz Ben-Moshe. I'm leading the project and responsible for the s/w while Michael is responsible for the h/w and the assembly. Thank you.

federeghe commented 1 year ago

@ronyr Regarding the paper, "statement of need" says that existing open source software didn't attract much attention and they have not been reused. Instead, you provide this software with that mission. My question is: what are the features of your software that differentiate it from the other existing software (that failed)? I think that the answer to this question should be the key point of the statement of need.

ronyronen commented 1 year ago

@federeghe Thanks for your comment. I've updated the PAPER and published a new release: https://github.com/kcglab/satllazero/releases/tag/4.0.9

ronyronen commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set 4.0.9 as version

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

I'm sorry @ronyronen, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

prashjha commented 1 year ago

@ronyronen let me update the version

prashjha commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set 4.0.9 as version

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! version is now 4.0.9

ronyronen commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot commands

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Hello @ronyronen, here are the things you can ask me to do:


# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

ronyronen commented 1 year ago

Dear @prashjha, I wandering about the review process. Has it been completed?

prashjha commented 1 year ago

Hello, @federeghe and @nachootal, could you please provide an update on how the review is progressing? Also, if possible, I would appreciate some estimate of the finishing time. Thanks!!

prashjha commented 1 year ago

Hi @ronyronen, the review is ongoing as many of the checklist items are unmarked.

federeghe commented 1 year ago

@prashjha I'm trying to find an Arduino to test the code. The software doesn't have a continuos integration, so I would like to try to check that at least compile and start. If the authors (@ronyronen) want to add the CI, it can surely speedup the process.

nachootal commented 1 year ago

Hi @prashjha , on my side, I didn't check the points that I had the feeling were missing. It isn't clear to me if the process is now that @ronyronen arguments how have they covered those points or the review can be completed so anyway.

ronyronen commented 1 year ago

@federeghe @prashjha Hi, I've added a github action for CI for both, the SAT0_Master and SAT0_Ground. Both are compiled using the CI. Do let me now if further information is required. A new release 4.0.10 has been published.

prashjha commented 1 year ago

Hi @nachootal, please put your comments or concerns in this issue, and @ronyronen will address them. Guidelines for review can be found here. You can quickly read through it.

prashjha commented 1 year ago

@nachootal, I will be happy to help further. Just let me know.

kcglab commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set 4.0.11 as version

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

I'm sorry @kcglab, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

nachootal commented 1 year ago

Hi @ronyronen ,

my feedback is the following:

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.

Data is available in the software folder. From the description in the paper I can't really assess that there's a library because the naming is a bit misleading. I see the 3 parts of software that the paper refers but I don't see clearly where the library is available

Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.

I think this part was also asked by @federeghe and you mentioned you'd be providing a GitHub action. Thanks for that.

Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).

I find the example needs to come probably by linking to a paper or description of a STATLLA-2B satellite so that it can be checked that the architecture matches and that it can be installed there and how.

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

If the object of the paper is the library, there's no documentation for the API of that library that I could find

Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?

Same as above.

ronyronen commented 1 year ago

Hi, @nachootal, Thanks for your review.

I'll work on the issues and will update the thread.

Data is available in the software folder. From the description in the paper I can't really assess that there's a library because the naming is a bit misleading. I see the 3 parts of software that the paper refers but I don't see clearly where the library is available

Please note that this was raised in issue #14 and has been fixed according to 2nd reviewer.

Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.

Actions is implemented. Please check action results in version 4.0.11 of the repo.

I find the example needs to come probably by linking to a paper or description of a STATLLA-2B satellite so that it can be checked that the architecture matches and that it can be installed there and how.

We refer the reader to SATLLA-2B tracking website and included all the materials to build it includes the hardware sketch and BOM.

If the object of the paper is the library, there's no documentation for the API of that library that I could find

The aim of the paper/library is not an API but to build a fully functional pico-satellite model based on a proven design that is fully functional in space.

Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?

We did include the github actions to build the software. Going forward we do want to enhance this repo together with the community and include more features. I'll check further on manual steps test and update the thread.

Thanks again for your review.

nachootal commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

nachootal commented 1 year ago

Hi @ronyronen ,

Thanks for such a fast response :)

I ticked already some of the comments I pointed because they were, as you said, covered in other issues.

I clarify some of my comments yet that I leave as suggestions only for you to estimate.

I see the link to SATLLA-0 on line 67. My suggestion was adding the link in every mention of the SATLLA-0. I ticked the requirement in because it's certainly linked. I just think for a newbie like me it would probably make sense to find this link early enough in the document.
The API description in the projects is missing. I understand this point of the revision as if there's an HTML version of the API like the one you'd find - in this concrete case - in pypi if you'd publish that piece of software as a library. From your description in the summary, I understand that there's two parts: Hardware and Software. The Hardware part is so that the thing can be built, the software part is, somehow, to make it run. When you mention that this software is divided in three libraries I understand that these components can be independently interfaced and used. Perhaps this is bias on my side that made me expect this and this is why I found interesting that the API for each of those libraries should be documented in case someone wants to use them as part of their projects. I don't know if it makes sense saying that these libraries are meant to be used as part of the project only because they're custom to this certain scope. (As I said, this is probably my bias so evaluate if it makes sense stating this clearer).

Thanks again for your attention and interesting work, Nacho

ronyronen commented 1 year ago

Hi @nachootal Thanks for your comments.

I'v update the paper doc to include the link to the repository early in the paper as you suggested.

To be clear about the software, although combining all of the components would result in a functioning satellite, each individual component can also function independently. For example, the flight software (SAT0_Master) can be used as a standalone, and the experiments from SAT0_OBC can be used independently as well. Do you think I should emphasize this in the paper? Thanks again.

nachootal commented 1 year ago

Hi @ronyronen ,

I would for sure emphasize it and offer documentation so that they can be used independently. To my understanding, this is also a result of your work in the context of this paper, isn't it?.

ronyronen commented 1 year ago

Hi, I've updated the readme about the independently of each component as discuss. Thanks again.

@prashjha please let me know if anything else is required. Thanks.

federeghe commented 1 year ago

@ronyronen Can you check the bullet list? It is not rendered correctly in the PDF.

@prashjha I completed the review and ticked all the flags, I think it's now ready for publication (once fixed the bullet list problem).

ronyronen commented 1 year ago

Hello, could you please make the version 4.0.12? Also, can you indicate the location of the problem in the PDF document? Thanks.

ronyronen commented 1 year ago

@federeghe @prashjha hi, could you please make the version 4.0.12? Also, can you indicate the location of the problem in the PDF document or the error you are see? I'm not able to locate it. Thanks.

ronyronen commented 1 year ago

@federeghe @prashjha @nachootal We are delighted to introduce the SATLLA-0 Evaluation Module (EVM) board. This board enhances the testing and evaluation capabilities of SATLLA-0. Equipped with a diverse range of satellite sensors, the EVM board facilitates comprehensive functionality experiments. It enables thorough analysis and optimization of various aspects such as thermal management, power optimization, and communication protocols. evm_board.

Nevertheless, we wanted to hear from you about the review process. Can you please reply to my previous request?

ronyronen commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set 4.0.13 as version

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

I'm sorry @ronyronen, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

prashjha commented 1 year ago

Hi @ronyronen, sorry for the delay. It looks like the reviewers are almost finished completing the reviews.

@ronyronen, please confirm if you have addressed the concerns of @nachootal?

prashjha commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot set 4.0.13 as version

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Done! version is now 4.0.13

prashjha commented 1 year ago

Hi @ronyronen, Could you please archive (if not done already) the release using zenodo and provide the archive reference so that I can associate it with your JOSS submission? Make sure that the zenodo archive's title matches this JOSS submission's title.

ronyronen commented 1 year ago

Hi @ronyronen, sorry for the delay. It looks like the reviewers are almost finished completing the reviews.

@ronyronen, please confirm if you have addressed the concerns of @nachootal?

Certainly. I have resolved all the mentioned concerns.

prashjha commented 1 year ago

@nachootal, looks like your comments are addressed. Please confirm your decision so that I can proceed with the submission. Thanks so much!!

ronyronen commented 1 year ago

Hi @ronyronen, Could you please archive (if not done already) the release using zenodo and provide the archive reference so that I can associate it with your JOSS submission? Make sure that the zenodo archive's title matches this JOSS submission's title.

Could you confirm if you are referring to this link: https://zenodo.org/record/8060399?

prashjha commented 1 year ago

Yes, but the title of zenodo needs to match the title of your JOSS paper; see examples in these closed issues: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues?q=label%3Areview+is%3Aclosed

openjournals / joss-reviews