search

openjournals / joss-reviews

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

[REVIEW]: LBR-Stack: ROS 2 and Python Integration of KUKA FRI for Med and IIWA Robots #6138

Open editorialbot opened 9 months ago

editorialbot commented 9 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@mhubii<!--end-author-handle-- (Martin Huber) Repository: https://github.com/lbr-stack/lbr_stack_doc Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@adi3<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @CameronDevine, @dmronga Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c43c82bed833c02503dd47f2637192ef"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c43c82bed833c02503dd47f2637192ef/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c43c82bed833c02503dd47f2637192ef/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c43c82bed833c02503dd47f2637192ef)

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

@CameronDevine & @bmagyar & @vincentberenz, 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 @adi3 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 @CameronDevine

📝 Checklist for @dmronga

editorialbot commented 9 months 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 9 months ago 
Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.02 s (764.7 files/s, 33762.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Markdown                         2             42              0            142
TeX                              1             10              0             98
YAML                             3              5              0             66
Python                           1             16             17             54
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
JSON                             1              0              0             22
reStructuredText                 3              7             29             11
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            13             92             54            428
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
editorialbot commented 9 months ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 988

editorialbot commented 9 months ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/SII55687.2023.10039308 is OK
- 10.1109/MRA.2018.2877776 is OK
- 10.1109/IROS.2004.1389727 is OK
- 10.1126/scirobotics.abm6074 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00456 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1109/tmi.2016.2620723 may be a valid DOI for title: Towards MRI-based autonomous robotic US acquisitions: a first feasibility study

INVALID DOIs

- None
editorialbot commented 9 months ago

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

adi3 commented 9 months ago

@vincentberenz looks like we already had a reviewer in place and we limit papers to 2 reviews. So let me ping you for our next submission, that should also align well with your January timeline :) Thanks!

adi3 commented 9 months ago

@editorialbot remove @vincentberenz from reviewers

editorialbot commented 9 months ago

@vincentberenz removed from the reviewers list!

adi3 commented 9 months ago

👋🏼 @mhubii this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

👋🏼 @CameronDevine, @bmagyar - you both should generate your checklists with the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check the items that you feel have been satisfied and let the author know where further work needs to be done.

Here is a little more context for first-time reviewers :) - 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, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6138 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 any of you require some more time. We can also use @editorialbot to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@adi3) if you have any questions/concerns. Thank you for all your help!!

bmagyar commented 9 months ago

Review checklist for @bmagyar

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

CameronDevine commented 9 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 9 months ago

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

CameronDevine commented 9 months ago

Review checklist for @CameronDevine

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

CameronDevine commented 9 months ago

@adi3 Before I get too far into this review, I would like to make sure we are all in agreement about the scope of this review. In the past, when I have both submitted and reviewed JOSS papers, the codebase and paper have been in a single repository. In this case, the codebase appears to be spread among multiple repositories all housed in a common GitHub organization. Therefore, should @bmagyar and I review all the repositories in the GitHub organization?

One exception to this rule would, I assume, be the lbr-stack/pymoveit2 repository which is a fork of another repository.

Finally, the checklist asks if the source code is available at https://github.com/lbr-stack/lbr_stack_doc, which it is not. Does this need to be changed?

mhubii commented 9 months ago

First of all, thank you very much for reviewing.

Correct, pymoveit2 is an unrelated fork that I will remove for clarification.

Have a good start into the new year!

adi3 commented 8 months ago

@arfon some valid points by @CameronDevine above. How should we go about handling multi-repo codebases?

arfon commented 8 months ago

@arfon some valid points by @CameronDevine above. How should we go about handling multi-repo codebases?

This does happen sometimes, and if you believe the structure of the project is reasonable, then it's acceptable for the review to be across multiple codebases.

CameronDevine commented 8 months ago

@arfon @adi3 in my reviewer checklist there is an item: "Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/lbr-stack/lbr_stack_doc?" As this is not true, how should I proceed?

mhubii commented 8 months ago

Hi All, sorry for the confusion. Let me give you a brief explanation.

The architecture is as follows (paper figure 2):

23_11_21_joss_fri_dependency_architecture drawio

Top: fri (KUKA's library, unaltered, only CMake support added) Middle: fri_vendor (expose fri cmake target to ament cmake for ROS 2), pyFRI (Python bindings for fri) Bottom: lbr_fri_ros2_stack (all ROS 2 integration)

Why this separation? The ROS ecosystem offers a lot but comes with a steep learning curve and currently limited cross platform support. Hence, for some users it is easiest to just pip install stuff, whereas more experienced users can really benefit from ROS.

adi3 commented 8 months ago

@CameronDevine In light of explanation provided by @mhubii I recommend checking off that item on your list. Thanks!

adi3 commented 8 months ago

@bmagyar could you please give us an idea of when you could start off your review? Appreciate your help!

mhubii commented 8 months ago

thank you for the feedback @CameronDevine. Hope things are going well!

As rightfully indicated, the license is now OSI compliant. Copyright notices where third-party software was used are included.

Looking forward for further feedback so we can work through this review :)

mhubii commented 8 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 8 months ago

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

adi3 commented 7 months ago

Note: Reached out to @bmagyar over email to commence his review

mhubii commented 7 months ago

I understand that we are all busy and doing this for free. The major difficulty that I currently see is that I am on a timeline as well, and it would really help me receive reviews, doesn't matter if these are small suggestions, but something to work on would help me greatly. I believe I have done my part and reviewed another JOSS submission (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5986#issuecomment-1937445684) in the meantime, so would really appreciate if I could get some input soon-ish, too.

If I may give some hints to the reviewers. What the software is currently lacking is:

I am happy for the reviewers to reference any of these but am open to additional input, too. Please let me know if you need help running this stack inside Docker.

I understand that this project has turned into quite an extended piece of work. We operate within an academical context and my supervisors are pushing me to get a publication out, as this is what allows us to support this endeavor in the first place. Thank you for the understanding and the help thus far.

adi3 commented 7 months ago

@mhubii I understand the situation you're in. Could you suggest a few more reviewers relevant to your topic, and I can reach out to them to request a review? Just make sure you don't tag them with @ - I'll do that :)

mhubii commented 6 months ago

what about vincentberenz, who was initially keen to review?

https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6138#issuecomment-1849486352

adi3 commented 6 months ago

@vincentberenz looks like we're a reviewer short for this paper. Would you be able to pick up this review? We'd appreciate your help!

mhubii commented 5 months ago

Again, I understand we are all busy, but got to admit that it is a little unfortunate that there is no review after 5 months time. Is there anything I can do? Maybe look for more reviewers? I will find 5 more reviewers.

adi3 commented 5 months ago

@mhubii go ahead and suggest a handful of reviewers

adi3 commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot commands

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

Hello @adi3, here are the things you can ask me to do:


# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot add @username as reviewer

# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot remove @username from reviewers

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

# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@editorialbot assign @username as editor

# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@editorialbot remove editor

# Remind an author, a reviewer or the editor to return to a review after a 
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@editorialbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

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

# Set a value for version
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version

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

# Set a value for repository
@editorialbot set https://github.com/organization/repo as repository

# Set a value for the archive DOI
@editorialbot set set 10.5281/zenodo.6861996 as archive

# Mention the EiCs for the correct track
@editorialbot ping track-eic

# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository

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

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Recommends the submission for acceptance
@editorialbot recommend-accept

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Flag submission with questionable scope
@editorialbot query scope

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

# Creates a post-review checklist with editor and authors tasks
@editorialbot create post-review checklist

# Open the review issue
@editorialbot start review
adi3 commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot remove @bmagyar from reviewers

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

@bmagyar removed from the reviewers list!

adi3 commented 5 months ago

@CameronDevine could you please continue with your checklist as we look out for another reviewer? Thanks!

adi3 commented 5 months ago

@editorialbot add @dmronga as reviewer

editorialbot commented 5 months ago

@dmronga added to the reviewers list!

adi3 commented 5 months ago

@dmronga thank you for agreeing to take up this review. Please see instructions in the intro message and let me know if you have any questions

dmronga commented 5 months ago

Review checklist for @dmronga

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

dmronga commented 4 months ago

@adi3 I have a question regarding the functionality of the software, which claims to work on 4 different KUKA LBR robots as one of the main contributions. Obviously, this cannot be tested without having the actual hardware available (although I am intending to do a test on at least the LBR iiwa 14, which we have in our lab). I assume checking if the Gazebo simulation is working should be enough in this case?

dmronga commented 4 months ago

@mhubii I found some minor issues (apart from those already mentioned by previous reviewer). Feel free to have a look any time

mhubii commented 4 months ago

perfect @dmronga , may I kindly ask you to tag this issue: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6138

in all the issue you find

dmronga commented 4 months ago

Sure, done

adi3 commented 4 months ago

@CameronDevine can I ask you to please clear out the last few items in your checklist? Would appreciate it!

CameronDevine commented 4 months ago

@CameronDevine can I ask you to please clear out the last few items in your checklist? Would appreciate it!

I will try to complete as much as I can today. I am also still waiting on a few issues to be closed before my review is complete. Specifically:

mhubii commented 4 months ago

that's correct, I am at it ! :)

mhubii commented 3 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

refers to https://github.com/lbr-stack/lbr_stack_doc/issues/26

editorialbot commented 3 months ago

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

adi3 commented 3 months ago

@CameronDevine just a couple of points outstanding in your checklist. Could you please have a look at them? Thanks!