[REVIEW]: BlenderProc2

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @themasterlink (Maximilian Denninger)
Repository: https://github.com/DLR-RM/BlenderProc
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v2.4.1
Editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Reviewers: @nicoguaro, @natevm, @SelvamArul
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7654630

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b6c09bcbf480413af8867609fa47ec6a"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b6c09bcbf480413af8867609fa47ec6a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b6c09bcbf480413af8867609fa47ec6a/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b6c09bcbf480413af8867609fa47ec6a)

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

@nicoguaro & @BradyAJohnston & @natevm & @SelvamArul, 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 @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman 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 @nicoguaro

📝 Checklist for @BradyAJohnston

📝 Checklist for @SelvamArul

📝 Checklist for @natevm

[editorialbot]

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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.60 s (728.5 files/s, 89565.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                         284           6236          11973          18098
YAML                            59             12             72           8429
Markdown                        80           1760              0           5195
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            315            700
SVG                              1              1              0            195
TeX                              1              1              0            144
XML                              1              2              0            116
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             27
Bourne Shell                     2              3              2             14
CSS                              1              7              3             11
make                             1              4              6             11
JSON                             1              0              0              7
reStructuredText                 1              2              5              0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           434           8036          12377          32947
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 864

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.48550/ARXIV.1906.05797 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1611.08974 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1902.01275 is OK
- 10.1109/ICCV.2019.00943 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1505.05641 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1902.03334 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2005.05659 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2011.09127 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1512.03012 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1911.01911 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2203.03570 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[SelvamArul]

Review checklist for @SelvamArul

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/DLR-RM/BlenderProc?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@themasterlink) 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?

[nicoguaro]

Review checklist for @nicoguaro

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/DLR-RM/BlenderProc?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@themasterlink) 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?

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@SelvamArul it looks like you've ticked all boxes. Let me know if you are formally happy to recommend acceptance at this point. Thanks again for your help!

[SelvamArul]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Yes, I would like to recommend the acceptance of this article.

[BradyAJohnston]

Review checklist for @BradyAJohnston

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/DLR-RM/BlenderProc?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@themasterlink) 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?

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@nicoguaro, @BradyAJohnston, @natevm, @SelvamArul can you provide an update on review progress, or when you'll get started? Thanks again for your help!!

[nicoguaro]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman, I am running late with my reviews this year. But I am catching up this week.

[nicoguaro]

@themasterlink, I have checked almost all the boxed for the submissions. I do have, a couple of comments, though:

• I can't find a mention to how to test the software in the documentation. By trying to run the tests I found that they are run by

`###############
This script can only be run by "blenderproc run", instead of calling:
        python run_all.py
call:
        blenderproc run run_all.py
###############

When I run the tests in my office computer (Windows 10) some of the tests fail (see DLR-RM/BlenderProc#771)

I don't if this is Windows related at the moment. I might come back in a Linux-based machine later.

• It would be nice to have scripts to generate Figure 1 in the paper and the first image on the README of the repo. There are plenty of examples, but they are the very first impressions for the software, so...

[cornerfarmer]

Hey @nicoguaro,

thank you for your comments!

I can't find a mention to how to test the software in the documentation.

You are right I added a respective readme file

It would be nice to have scripts to generate Figure 1 in the paper and the first image on the README of the repo. There are plenty of examples, but they are the very first impressions for the software, so...

These figures are actually based on an already existing example: https://github.com/DLR-RM/BlenderProc/tree/main/examples/datasets/front_3d_with_improved_mat
It shows how to load scenes from the 3D-Front dataset, how to sample camera poses in them and then how to render all kinds of modalities

I also slightly updated table 1 in the paper

@editorialbot generate pdf

PS: @themasterlink is currently not available, so I would take over the process

[nicoguaro]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@SelvamArul thanks again for your help here. I see you have a box unticked for the "Statement of need" section of the paper. Is this intentional? Do you feel the authors need to work on that section? Let me know if you have any instructions for the authors or if the box can now be ticked. Thanks!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@BradyAJohnston could you provide an update on review progress? Thanks again for your help!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@natevm ould you provide an update on review progress? Are you able to get started? Thanks for your help here.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@nicoguaro could you also provide an update? Where you happy with some of those changes ☝️ ? Thanks

[SelvamArul]

@SelvamArul thanks again for your help here. I see you have a box unticked for the "Statement of need" section of the paper. Is this intentional? Do you feel the authors need to work on that section? Let me know if you have any instructions for the authors or if the box can now be ticked. Thanks!

Sure! The box can be ticked.

[nicoguaro]

@nicoguaro could you also provide an update? Where you happy with some of those changes ☝️ ? Thanks

Yes, I have marked all the boxed now and we are good to go.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@BradyAJohnston, @natevm can you please provide an update on this review? Let me know if you are no longer able to help.

[natevm]

I've also been tied up with a mix of PhD work and an internship at ANL. But I'll get this review done today

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@BradyAJohnston given the three completed reviews here we will now proceed to avoid further delay for this submission. Thanks for initially agreeing to review. We hope that you may be available and able to complete future reviews for JOSS.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot remove @BradyAJohnston as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@BradyAJohnston removed from the reviewers list!

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@themasterlink @cornerfarmer based on the above positive reviews, I am happy to process this work for acceptance in JOSS. To proceed we require your help to work on the following:

• Please archive a copy of the software on ZENODO and report back here with the DOI. You can do this manually or you can follow these automated steps: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/archiving-a-github-repository/referencing-and-citing-content

Please check the ZENODO archive and check the following (you may need to manually edit the ZENODO entry for this):

• The title should match the paper title
• The author set and order should be the same. You may also (recommended) add ORCID's for each author at this point.
• The license listed should match your software license
• This review is currently defined as for version v2.4.1. During the review the version may have been incremented (and some alter it when they create the archive). The version listed for this review and for the ZENODO archive should match. Furthermore this version tag should appear as a tagged release on your GitHub repository. Using the above automated steps ZENODO will match the version listed on GitHub automatically. But do check this and alter it if needed. Next report this updated version tag to me and I can update the one listed for this review issue.

I have read the paper and it seems in order to me. If you wanted to proofread it yourself once more, now is the time to do so. In particular check that the author set and names, and the acknowledgements are accurate.

[cornerfarmer]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Thank you for the update! The code is now uploaded to zenodo: https://zenodo.org/record/7654630
The DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.7654630

Title, Authors, License and Version should match. Let me know if there need to be any changes or you need any additional information.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot recommend accept

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Paper is not ready for acceptance yet, the archive is missing

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7654630 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7654630

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.48550/ARXIV.1906.05797 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1611.08974 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1902.01275 is OK
- 10.1109/ICCV.2019.00943 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1505.05641 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1902.03334 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2005.05659 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2011.09127 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1512.03012 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.1911.01911 is OK
- 10.48550/ARXIV.2203.03570 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/dsais-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#3981, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

[editorialbot]

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

[editorialbot]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.04901 joss-papers#3982
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04901
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[arfon]

@nicoguaro, @natevm, @SelvamArul – many thanks for your reviews here and to @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman for editing this submission! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨

@themasterlink – your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS ⚡🚀💥

[editorialbot]

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04901/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04901)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04901">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04901/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04901/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04901

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss