[REVIEW]: The ARC-OPT Library for Whole-Body Control of Robotic Systems

editorialbot commented 7 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@dmronga@adi3<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @mhubii, @sea-bass, @JHartzer Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4ce358bd4b2acc05b589f2883b168567"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4ce358bd4b2acc05b589f2883b168567/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4ce358bd4b2acc05b589f2883b168567/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4ce358bd4b2acc05b589f2883b168567)

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

@ShravanTata & @mhubii, 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 @mhubii

📝 Checklist for @sea-bass

📝 Checklist for @JHartzer

editorialbot commented 7 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 7 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.14 s (1965.8 files/s, 298190.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XML                             47            269             30          22743
C++                             84           2007           1074           7881
C/C++ Header                    64            802           1290           1831
YAML                            16             68             14            856
SVG                              2              0              0            633
CMake                           45            168              1            622
TeX                              1             19              0            183
Bourne Shell                     3             36             31            177
Markdown                         3             78              0            135
diff                             6             21             50             88
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           271           3468           2490          35149
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   568  dmronga
   196  Dennis Mronga
    42  misteronga
    36  ibergonzani
     6  Sebastian Kasperski
     3  rh5user
     2  Malte Wirkus
     2  Steffen Planthaber
     1  Bob the Builder
     1  Pierre Willenbrock
     1  Vinzenz Bargsten

editorialbot commented 7 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 743

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 7 months ago

License info:

✅ License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot commented 7 months ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/ROBOT.2006.1642100 is OK
- 10.1115/1.4045941 is OK
- 10.1109/HUMANOIDS47582.2021.9555770 is OK
- 10.1007/s10514-016-9574-0 is OK
- 10.1109/LRA.2019.2926664 is OK
- 10.15607/rss.2022.xviii.040 is OK
- 10.1142/s0219843615500449 is OK
- 10.1007/s12532-014-0071-1 is OK
- 10.1109/ICRA.2016.7487270 is OK
- 10.1142/S0219843616500079 is OK
- 10.1109/ICRA46639.2022.9811616 is OK
- 10.1016/j.robot.2021.103779 is OK
- 10.1080/01691864.2020.1721322 is OK
- 10.1109/sii.2019.8700380 is OK
- 10.3390/s22249853 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Eiquadprog
- No DOI given, and none found for title: KDL: Kinematics and Dynamics Library

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 7 months ago

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

mhubii commented 6 months ago

Review checklist for @mhubii

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/ARC-OPT/wbc?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@dmronga) 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?

crvernon commented 6 months ago

:wave: @adi3 - Could you check in on this thread to see how things are going? It looks like there hasn't been much activity since the review kicked off. Thanks!

mhubii commented 6 months ago

I am at it @crvernon

mhubii commented 6 months ago

I provided some initial review @dmronga with mostly minor fixes. Could you please provide a Dockerfile so I can test things quicker? Thank you!

crvernon commented 5 months ago

👋 @adi3 - Could you check in on this thread to see how things are going?

adi3 commented 4 months ago

@ShravanTata - can you get your review started sometime in the next days? I see @mhubii is already making progress through his checklist.

dmronga commented 4 months ago

@adi3 Any updates on this matter?

mhubii commented 4 months ago

really need to get this review rolling again and finalize the checklist, sorry for being slow

crvernon commented 3 months ago

@adi3 - please check in on this review and see if we can get it moving. Thank you!

adi3 commented 3 months ago

@mhubii waiting on your action here

mhubii commented 2 months ago

so I have done a second round of reviews, targeting functionality and performance. The library works as intended and except for some suggestions, I am happy. I will now have to investigate its integration into ROS 2 in more detail

mhubii commented 2 months ago

I think the ROS 2 support has a little cleaning up to do. This depends on what the main focus of this submission is. Arguably, the WBC library in itself already provides a lot of functionality with the ROS integration being the cherry on top..

should I review https://github.com/ARC-OPT/wbc_py as well?

dmronga commented 2 months ago

@mhubii No the wbc_py lib is outdated. The original publication should only consider the wbc library. But it is definitely good that you provided remarks on the ros2 interface.

mhubii commented 2 months ago

Okay sounds good. With the cleaned dependencies, I'll do one more run for the ROS integration, otherwise, I am happy with the submission and think it adds a valuable contribution to JOSS.

One more remark on adding robot descriptions to a controller package. I get the design choice and the ease of use, but there is no clear separation of concerns. But since this is no issue in itself, I'd leave it to the author for future work.

dmronga commented 2 months ago

Thank you. Can you open an issue on the last problem and explain a bit more? I will try to take a look at it sometime.

adi3 commented 2 months ago

@ShravanTata could I request you to please kick off your review for this submission? Let me know if I can assist you in any way!

dmronga commented 1 month ago

@adi3 Any updates here? Should I suggest another reviewer?

adi3 commented 4 weeks ago

@dmronga yes please. I reached out to @ShravanTata via email a few weeks ago, but didn't get a response. Could you please suggest unto 5 new reviewers, and do not tag them. Simply list their git handles here. Thanks!

dmronga commented 4 weeks ago

@adi3 I suggest JHartzer, ishaanamahajan, sea-bass, CameronDevine and mcbed

adi3 commented 2 weeks ago

@JHartzer @ishaanamahajan @sea-bass @CameronDevine @mcbed - would one of you be interested in reviewing this submission? We have one review already completed for this paper and just need another one to go. Appreciate your help!

sea-bass commented 2 weeks ago

I'd be interested in reviewing this submission!

JHartzer commented 1 week ago

Howdy @adi3, I am also available to review, if necessary!

adi3 commented 1 week ago

@editorialbot remove @ShravanTata from reviewers

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

@ShravanTata removed from the reviewers list!

adi3 commented 1 week ago

@editorialbot add @sea-bass as reviewer

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

@sea-bass added to the reviewers list!

adi3 commented 1 week ago

@editorialbot add @JHartzer as reviewer

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

@JHartzer added to the reviewers list!

adi3 commented 1 week ago

@JHartzer @sea-bass thank you for stepping up! you can generate your respective checklists by issuing @editorialbot generate my checklist. More details here. Please let me know if I can assist with anything!

sea-bass commented 1 week ago

Review checklist for @sea-bass

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/ARC-OPT/wbc?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@dmronga) 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?
[ ] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[ ] 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?

sea-bass commented 6 days ago

Hello @dmronga -- thank you for this great work. It was a pleasure to review it, especially as a fellow user of Pinocchio that is currently starting to learn more about optimal planning and control.

Overall, the software is in great shape and all the examples ran (except for the rh5v2 which was commented out). However, I was on Ubuntu 24.04 and while I could use the Docker to try core WBC, I didn't have an easy way to try the ROS 2 support. Most importantly, I was expecting the tutorials to have some visualization beyond console output, which I think will be an important addition.

The paper is quite minimal and needs some more substance put into it. Most of this involves better communicating all the functionality that is already present in the WBC stack. You can find more details in https://github.com/ARC-OPT/wbc/issues/117

Besides that, I've written down some other issues and will break them down into must have and nice to have.

Must have (required)

Nice to have (not required)

https://github.com/ARC-OPT/wbc/issues/115

Please feel free to discuss individual things in the respective issues, and I look forward to seeing revisions. This is really great work, and just needs a little bit of push on the tutorials and publication. Thank you!

dmronga commented 6 days ago

@sea-bass Thank you so much for your detailed review. I will have a look on the issues!

JHartzer commented 2 days ago

Review checklist for @JHartzer

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/ARC-OPT/wbc?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@dmronga) 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.
[ ] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[ ] 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

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

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

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

openjournals / joss-reviews