Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @studywolf, it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

⭐️ Important ⭐️

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

2. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

👋 @studywolf & @jenskober - thanks for agreeing to review.

I'll note here that we expect a couple of weeks delay until this gets started.

When you are ready to start, please see the comment above - your job is basically to review the paper and software according to your checklists, checking off items as they are deemed ok, and making either short comments or more detailed comments in the code repository as you find problems that need to be addressed by the author.

👋 @studywolf & @jenskober - Please go ahead and start this review when you are able to do so

@jenskober - How are you doing with your review?

Hi - I'm going to be on vacation for 2 1/2 weeks, so I'm shifting the editor of this submission to be @arfon, during that period - thanks @arfon

@whedon assign @arfon as editor

regarding the authorship checkbox, Gennaro Raiola has contributed about 1k vs 120k lines of code from Freek Stulp according to the commit history. I'm not sure exactly what the requirements for 'major contribution' are, but the authorship on the paper reflects Freek Stulp as primary author so I'm checking this box as complete.

Edit: It is odd though that the bibtex citation in the README does not list Gennaro Raiola as an author.

didn't see what versions are python are supported. leaving Installation instructions unchecked until stulp/dmpbbo#28 resolved

edit: base conda install of python requires matplotlib to run demos

@studywolf, the issue stulp/dmpbbo#28 should be fixed now.

@graiola
missing DOIs in paper
https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2002.1014739
https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2012.6385818

and a few little issues with the demos and tests
stulp/dmpbbo#31

@jenskober I fixed the missing DOIs, thanks.

@whedon generate pdf

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

and a few little issues with the demos and tests
stulp/dmpbbo#31

I've taken the liberty of splitting your issue stulp/dmpbbo#31 into smaller ones 32-40, so that we can assign & conquer. As the other ones are now open, I've closed stulp/dmpbbo#31.

Here is a small update. Based on the feedback from the reviewers, following larger modifications have been made (apart from smaller bugfixes). These modifications are related to the demos and tests in the C++ version, not the core library.

• The executables and Python wrappers were in different directories which was confusing. They are now installed in the demos/ directory so that they are together.

• Demos are now documented in README.md files in the subdirectories of the demos/ directory. Again, this is to have everything in one place, and allow users to understand and run demos without calling doxygen (doxygen documentation is now only for the API of the libraries in the src/ directory)

• When running the demos, the data is no longer stored in /tmp, but in the demos/ directory itself. This ensures that everything is in one place, makes it more transparent that data is being written, and allows the user to have a look at the generated data on the spot.

• Tests in dmpbbo are not unit test but programs used for development. They are no longer installed in bin_test to avoid confusion about this.

• INSTALL.txt has been rewritten and improved into INSTALL.md

@stulp Thanks for all the updates, looks great now from my side.

@graiola One last thing about the paper itself: if you check the article proof above, on the second page in applications you have "(Stulp,2012,Stulp et al. (2013),stulp14simultaneous,Stulp & Sigaud (2015))" "stulp14simultaneous" is missing in the references, the first one "Stulp,2012" looks strange as well, and a few spaces after the commas (also first page "(A. J. Ijspeert, Nakanishi, & Schaal, 2002,A. Ijspeert, Nakanishi, Pastor, Hoffmann, & Schaal (2013))") would be nice...

Thanks @jenskober , I will look into it now.

@whedon generate pdf

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

PDF failed to compile for issue #1225 with the following error:

/app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-01ece1d1d135/lib/whedon/author.rb:58:in block in build_affiliation_string': Problem with affiliations for Freek Stulp, perhaps the affiliations index need quoting? (RuntimeError) from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-01ece1d1d135/lib/whedon/author.rb:57:in each'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-01ece1d1d135/lib/whedon/author.rb:57:in build_affiliation_string' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-01ece1d1d135/lib/whedon/author.rb:17:in initialize'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-01ece1d1d135/lib/whedon.rb:109:in new' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-01ece1d1d135/lib/whedon.rb:109:in block in parse_authors'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-01ece1d1d135/lib/whedon.rb:106:in each' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-01ece1d1d135/lib/whedon.rb:106:in parse_authors'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-01ece1d1d135/lib/whedon.rb:73:in initialize' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-01ece1d1d135/lib/whedon/processor.rb:32:in new'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-01ece1d1d135/lib/whedon/processor.rb:32:in set_paper' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-01ece1d1d135/bin/whedon:55:in prepare'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in run' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/invocation.rb:126:in invoke_command'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor.rb:387:in dispatch' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/base.rb:466:in start'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-01ece1d1d135/bin/whedon:116:in <top (required)>' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in load'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in `

@whedon generate pdf

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@arfon @studywolf I'm done with my review.

@arfon @studywolf I'm done with my review.

Great! It looks like there's a number of checkboxes that aren't ticked - could you please take another look at them and tick what you can given you review?

Hmm, as far as I can see all mine are checked. @studywolf still has some that are not checked.

Hmm, as far as I can see all mine are checked. @studywolf still has some that are not checked.

You're right. Apologies. @studywolf - how are you getting along with your review?

Sorry about the delay, I didn't get these notification reminders for some reason. Things have been hectic! I will try to finish the review tonight / tomorrow though.

a few issues submitted to the repo as i was going through the examples. I haven't fully confirmed the functionality or looked at the functionality documentation.

There are no unit tests for checking off the 'automated tests' box, I see it was mentioned above but didn't see it specifically addressed. What's the resolution on this?

@whedon assign @danielskatz as editor

thanks for the help while I was out @arfon

There are no unit tests for checking off the 'automated tests' box, I see it was mentioned above but didn't see it specifically addressed. What's the resolution on this?

The test do not need need to be automated, but there do need to be some tests. If there are tests, please check it off. If there are no tests at all, some need to be added

@whedon assign @danielskatz as editor

Check it off if there are any tests at all? Or are we looking for some amount of functionality coverage?

I would say minimal functionality tests - something that verifies the basic functionality

👋 @studywolf - How is the review going? What's currently blocking you?

Was able to check off a few more, mostly available time is blocking me. I had one remaining issue on the repo (and just raised another), should I not be waiting for them to be resolved before checking off the corresponding box?

@danielskatz i've completed the review, and with the contributing documentation added it looks good aside from the documentation for one part of the code. This is currently an open issue on the github, so deferring to you on this. If you think it's fine to not have this resolved before approving then 👍

Let's go ahead at this point.

👋 @graiola - what is the current version number?

And please make sure there is an archive of the current version, and let me know the DOI for it as well.

Thanks very much, @studywolf and @jenskober for your reviews!

It would be nice if I could close issue 44 (which was opened by @studywolf) before assigning the next version number. That is the version I would like the DOI to be assigned with.

Fixing 44 is quite a bit of work (involving an overhaul of the serialization functions), but I should be done within a week or so. @danielskatz, would it be possible to wait with the acceptance until I have fixed it?

If it's that close to done, then yes, let's wait. My suggestion to go ahead was based on an assumption it would take longer.

When you make the new version, please make the changes clear so one of us can quickly review them as well.