[REVIEW]: The ARC-OPT Library for Whole-Body Control of Robotic Systems
editorialbot opened this issue · comments
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
Review checklist for @mhubii
Conflict of interest
- 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
- I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.
General checks
- Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/ARC-OPT/wbc?
- License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
- 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?
- Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
- 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?
👋 @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!