editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@AidanSun05@mahfuz05062<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @harshadjs, @wob86 Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13328366

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b8d7a821d1b047017f3bde87e147f7c8"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b8d7a821d1b047017f3bde87e147f7c8/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b8d7a821d1b047017f3bde87e147f7c8/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b8d7a821d1b047017f3bde87e147f7c8)

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

@harshadjs & @wob86, 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 @mahfuz05062 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 @wob86

📝 Checklist for @harshadjs

editorialbot commented 1 month 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 month ago

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

OK DOIs

- 10.3389/friot.2022.1073780 is OK
- 10.1186/s40537-019-0268-2 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Coroutines (C++20)

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.05 s (2707.6 files/s, 205715.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                             50           1131            552           3642
C/C++ Header                    49            553            414           1483
Swift                            4            112             36            499
Markdown                        10            249              0            490
YAML                            13             95             10            485
Lua                              6             64             24            287
Python                           3             50             37            157
TeX                              1              2              0             28
XML                              1              0              0              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           137           2256           1073           7080
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

  1092  Aidan Sun
    33  AidanSun05

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 577

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

License info:

🟡 License found: GNU General Public License v3.0 (Check here for OSI approval)

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

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

mahfuz05062 commented 1 month ago

@harshadjs and @wob86 - Thank you for agreeing to review this submission.

This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As mentioned above, you can use the command @editorialbot generate my checklist to create your review checklist. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied.

There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines (https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html)

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, 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/6964 so that a link is created to this thread for visibility. 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 you require additional time. We can also use editorialbot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period.

Please feel free to ping me (@mahfuz05062) if you have any questions/concerns.

wob86 commented 1 month ago

Review checklist for @wob86

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/WhaleConnect/whaleconnect?
[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 (@AidanSun05) 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?

harshadjs commented 1 month ago

Review checklist for @harshadjs

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/WhaleConnect/whaleconnect?
[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 (@AidanSun05) 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?

mahfuz05062 commented 1 month ago

Hi, @wob86 and @harshadjs - a quick check-in. We aim to have the reviews done within 4 weeks. Let me know if I can facilitate the process in any way. Thanks!

harshadjs commented 1 month ago

@mahfuz05062 thanks for checking in! I have started my review and will get back with feedback here.

@AidanSun05, can you take a look at https://github.com/WhaleConnect/whaleconnect/issues/3? I'll try different OS meanwhile for testing.

AidanSun05 commented 1 month ago

@harshadjs Thank you for letting me know about the problem. I've responded in the issue you opened.

mahfuz05062 commented 1 month ago

@mahfuz05062 thanks for checking in! I have started my review and will get back with feedback here.

@AidanSun05, can you take a look at WhaleConnect/whaleconnect#3? I'll try different OS meanwhile for testing.

Thanks @harshadjs ; please keep up the progress on your review!! @wob86 I don't see much progress in your case; please let me know if you need more time for your review.

harshadjs commented 3 weeks ago

Hello @AidanSun05, the overall paper and project looks great!

This paper presents WhaleConnect, a cross-platform async communication tool. Async communication is efficient and more performant that synchronous communication. However, due to complexity and high variance of OS-native async communication APIs, it has generally been harder for applications to use the APIs. WhaleConnect provides a tool that provides the ability for different OSes to communicate with each other over various protocols, using efficient async communication stack on respective OSes.

Could you please add following missing items on the repository?

Could you include an example usage on the repository? Specifically I would like to see an example where server is configured, client is configured, and they are both able to communicate using WhaleConnect.
Could you add references at the end of the paper?
(optional) I really liked unification of async IO libraries across multiple platforms. Would it be possible to add API documentation for that? (https://github.com/WhaleConnect/whaleconnect/blob/main/src/os/async.hpp)

Also, in general, have you considered releasing your tool also as a library? If done so, other researches can leverage WhaleConnect library for implementing communication tools on top. Providing a tool is great! Providing a library would be even better! Something to consider, but not needed for the paper review.

AidanSun05 commented 3 weeks ago

@harshadjs Thank you for your feedback! I added the example you mentioned in the usage documentation and a section about WhaleConnect's design goals and target audience in the main readme.

In the references section of the paper, I added citations to the documentation for the async APIs that WhaleConnect uses.

Thanks for the suggestion to release WhaleConnect as something that others can build upon! A library sounds like an excellent option, and I would like to incorporate this in a future release. I will also expand on API documentation during that time.

AidanSun05 commented 3 weeks ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 3 weeks ago

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

wob86 commented 3 weeks ago

@mahfuz05062 sorry for delay in updates Paper is well written and project is very interesting. I have only one issue which I have raised and linked.

Thanks

AidanSun05 commented 3 weeks ago

@wob86 Thanks for your review! I've modified the paper accordingly.

AidanSun05 commented 3 weeks ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 3 weeks ago

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

harshadjs commented 2 weeks ago

Thanks for handling the feedback, the review from my end is now complete. @mahfuz05062 is there anything else I need to do?

mahfuz05062 commented 2 weeks ago

Thanks for handling the feedback, the review from my end is now complete. @mahfuz05062 is there anything else I need to do?

Nope, you are good. Thanks for completing the review! I will wait for @wob86 to complete his review and then list the next steps.

wob86 commented 2 weeks ago

Thanks for fixing the issue, review from me is now complete. @mahfuz05062 Thanks

mahfuz05062 commented 2 weeks ago

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Double check authors and affiliations (including ORCIDs)
Make a release of the software with the latest changes from the review and post the version number here. This is the version that will be used in the JOSS paper.
Archive the release on Zenodo/figshare/etc and post the DOI here.
Make sure that the title and author list (including ORCIDs) in the archive match those in the JOSS paper.
Make sure that the license listed for the archive is the same as the software license.

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance

[x] Read the text of the paper and offer comments/corrections (as either a list or a pull request)
[x] Check that the archive title, author list, version tag, and the license are correct
[x] Set archive DOI with @editorialbot set <DOI here> as archive
[x] Set version with @editorialbot set <version here> as version
[x] Double check rendering of paper with @editorialbot generate pdf
[x] Specifically check the references with @editorialbot check references and ask author(s) to update as needed
[x] Recommend acceptance with @editorialbot recommend-accept

mahfuz05062 commented 2 weeks ago

@wob86 and @harshadjs , thank you for completing your reviews. @AidanSun05 can you make sure to complete the post-review tasks from above? Thanks!

AidanSun05 commented 2 weeks ago

@mahfuz05062 Thank you for the information. I have completed the author tasks:

The author list in the paper is correct.
I made a new release: v1.0.2.
The DOI of the Zenodo archive is 10.5281/zenodo.13328366.
The title and author list in the archive are correct.
The license in the archive is correct.

mahfuz05062 commented 2 weeks ago

@mahfuz05062 Thank you for the information. I have completed the author tasks:

The author list in the paper is correct.

I made a new release: v1.0.2.

The DOI of the Zenodo archive is 10.5281/zenodo.13328366.

The title and author list in the archive are correct.

The license in the archive is correct.

Thanks! I will go over my checklist soon.

mahfuz05062 commented 1 week ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

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

mahfuz05062 commented 1 week ago

Hi @AidanSun05,

Can you take care of the following:

I would suggest replacing 'a variety of' with 'various' in the abstract for conciseness.
Can you rewrite the first paragraph of Statement of need. Specifically, I would suggest to re-write it in simpler sentences and fix the usage of semicolons in the 3rd and 4th sentences.
(Optional) I see that you have linked your ORCID, however, you don't have any public information available. Maybe make some information public (if there is some)?

I will go over the text again once you are done with these. Thanks!

AidanSun05 commented 6 days ago

@mahfuz05062 Thanks, I have made the changes you suggested.

AidanSun05 commented 6 days ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 6 days ago

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

mahfuz05062 commented 3 days ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.13328366 as archive

editorialbot commented 3 days ago

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13328366

mahfuz05062 commented 3 days ago

@editorialbot set v1.0.2 as version

editorialbot commented 3 days ago

Done! version is now v1.0.2

mahfuz05062 commented 3 days ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 3 days ago

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

mahfuz05062 commented 3 days ago

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot commented 3 days ago

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.3389/friot.2022.1073780 is OK
- 10.1186/s40537-019-0268-2 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: I/O Completion Ports
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Mac OS X Manual Page For kqueue(2)
- No DOI given, and none found for title: IOBluetooth
- No DOI given, and none found for title: liburing library for io_uring
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Coroutines (C++20)

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

mahfuz05062 commented 3 days ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 3 days ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot commented 3 days ago

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.3389/friot.2022.1073780 is OK
- 10.1186/s40537-019-0268-2 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: I/O Completion Ports
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Mac OS X Manual Page For kqueue(2)
- No DOI given, and none found for title: IOBluetooth
- No DOI given, and none found for title: liburing library for io_uring
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Coroutines (C++20)

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 3 days ago

:wave: @openjournals/csism-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/5821, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz commented 3 days ago

👋 @AidanSun05 - as the track chair, I'll next proofread the submission and let you know if anything else is needed on your side, likely in the next few hours

danielskatz commented 3 days ago

👋 @AidanSun05 - I've suggested some small changes for the references in https://github.com/WhaleConnect/whaleconnect/pull/5 - please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can proceed.

AidanSun05 commented 3 days ago

@danielskatz Thanks! I agree with the changes so I've merged the pull request.

danielskatz commented 3 days ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

openjournals / joss-reviews

[REVIEW]: WhaleConnect: A General-Purpose, Cross-Platform Network Communication Application #6964

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

Review checklist for @wob86

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @harshadjs

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Post-Review Checklist for Editor and Authors

Additional Author Tasks After Review is Complete

Editor Tasks Prior to Acceptance