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

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@dmronga@adi3<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @ShravanTata, @mhubii 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

editorialbot commented 2 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 2 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 2 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 743

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

License info:

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

editorialbot commented 2 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 2 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 2 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.
[ ] 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

[ ] 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.
[x] 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)?
[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 1 month 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 1 month ago

I am at it @crvernon

mhubii commented 1 month 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 1 week ago

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

adi3 commented 2 days ago

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

openjournals / joss-reviews