joss-reviews
joss-reviews copied to clipboard
openjournals
[REVIEW]: The ARC-OPT Library for Whole-Body Control of Robotic Systems
Submitting author: @dmronga (Dennis Mronga) Repository: https://github.com/ARC-OPT/wbc Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss Version: master Editor: @adi3 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: [](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
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
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
Paper file info:
📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 743
✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section
License info:
✅ License found: BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (Valid open source OSI approved license)
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
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
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?
: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!
I provided some initial review @dmronga with mostly minor fixes. Could you please provide a Dockerfile so I can test things quicker? Thank you!
@ShravanTata - can you get your review started sometime in the next days? I see @mhubii is already making progress through his checklist.
really need to get this review rolling again and finalize the checklist, sorry for being slow
@adi3 - please check in on this review and see if we can get it moving. Thank you!
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
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?
@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.
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.
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.
@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 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!
@adi3 I suggest JHartzer, ishaanamahajan, sea-bass, CameronDevine and mcbed
@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!
