[REVIEW]: TraViA: a Traffic data Visualization and Annotation tool in Python

[whedon]

Submitting author: @OlgerSiebinga (Olger Siebinga)
Repository: https://github.com/tud-hri/travia
Version: v1.1
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewer: @rusu24edward, @tomalrussell
Archive: 10.4121/16645651

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fb238ebde08f03c9c2767bd049333ef6"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fb238ebde08f03c9c2767bd049333ef6/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fb238ebde08f03c9c2767bd049333ef6/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/fb238ebde08f03c9c2767bd049333ef6)

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

@rusu24edward & @tomalrussell, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @danielskatz 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 ✨

Review checklist for @rusu24edward

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

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 repository url?
• 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 (@OlgerSiebinga) 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

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 and who the target audience is?
• 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?

Review checklist for @tomalrussell

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

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 repository url?
• 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 (@OlgerSiebinga) 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

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 and who the target audience is?
• 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?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @rusu24edward, @tomalrussell it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉.

⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

⭐ 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

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Wordcount for paper.md is 976

[whedon]

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.09 s (596.0 files/s, 69838.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          44            744            606           3074
Qt                               5             16             48           1280
Markdown                         2             82              0            232
TeX                              1              0              0            105
YAML                             1              1              4             18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            53            843            658           4709
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository '38c260adcd057383a6defd29' was
gathered on 2021/08/11.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Olger Siebinga                   1          4424              0          100.00

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Olger Siebinga             4424          100.0          0.0                3.71

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/ITSC.2018.8569552 is OK
- 10.1016/j.trc.2019.11.023 is OK
- 10.21949/1504477 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1820676116 is OK
- 10.1016/j.trc.2015.07.007 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1093/gao/9781884446054.article.t067397 may be a valid DOI for title: pickle

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

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

[danielskatz]

@rusu24edward and @tomalrussell - Thanks for agreeing to review this submission.
This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread with the JOSS requirements. 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.

Please read the first couple of comments in this issue carefully, so that you can accept the invitation from JOSS and be able to check items, and so that you don't get overwhelmed with notifications from other activities in JOSS.

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 openjournals/joss-reviews#3607 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). 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 either of you require some more time. We can also use Whedon (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

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

[danielskatz]

👋 @OlgerSiebinga - please note the DOI whedon suggests - if this is correct, please update your bib file then use the command @whedon check references to check again, and the command @whedon generate pdf when the references are right to make a new PDF. Whedon commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[OlgerSiebinga]

@whedon check references

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/ITSC.2018.8569552 is OK
- 10.1016/j.trc.2019.11.023 is OK
- 10.21949/1504477 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1820676116 is OK
- 10.1016/j.trc.2015.07.007 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[OlgerSiebinga]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

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

[rusu24edward]

@danielskatz please send me the collaboration invitation again, I didn't open it in time and it has expired.

[rusu24edward]

@OlgerSiebinga, I've followed the setup instructions on the main Readme. When I try to run the visualize.py file, I get the following:

(v_travia) ~/codes/travia$ python3 visualize.py 
QObject::moveToThread: Current thread (0x1cc8fb0) is not the object's thread (0x2165ab0).
Cannot move to target thread (0x1cc8fb0)

qt.qpa.plugin: Could not load the Qt platform plugin "xcb" in "/home/eddie/codes/travia/v_travia/lib/python3.8/site-packages/cv2/qt/plugins" even though it was found.
This application failed to start because no Qt platform plugin could be initialized. Reinstalling the application may fix this problem.

Available platform plugins are: xcb, eglfs, linuxfb, minimal, minimalegl, offscreen, vnc, wayland-egl, wayland, wayland-xcomposite-egl, wayland-xcomposite-glx, webgl.

Aborted (core dumped)

I'm using Python 3.8 on Ubuntu 18 and I've installed the requirements with pip as the Readme instructs.

[danielskatz]

@whedon re-invite @rusu24edward as reviewer

[whedon]

OK, the reviewer has been re-invited.

@rusu24edward please accept the invite by clicking this link: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

[whedon]

👋 @rusu24edward, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[whedon]

👋 @tomalrussell, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[tomalrussell]

Initially blocked by a couple of OS compatibility issues (Windows-to-Linux), but I've filed a couple of issues now and can make progress.

[rusu24edward]

Blocked from further review by installation errors. It appears that this software was tested on Windows only, to which I do not have access.

[danielskatz]

Thanks @rusu24edward - Does @tomalrussell's suggestion in tud-hri/travia#2 work for you?

[rusu24edward]

@danielskatz Yes it does. However, now I encounter this error. I will keep trying to work forward, and it would be helpful if @OlgerSiebinga could start implementing some of Tomal's suggested changes.

[whedon]

OK. v1.1 is the version.

[danielskatz]

@whedon set 10.4121/16645651 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.4121/16645651 is the archive.

[danielskatz]

@OlgerSiebinga - please let me know when the archive is public, then we can proceed

[OlgerSiebinga]

@danielskatz - The archive was accepted and is public now

[danielskatz]

@whedon recommend-accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/ITSC.2018.8569552 is OK
- 10.1016/j.trc.2019.11.023 is OK
- 10.21949/1504477 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1820676116 is OK
- 10.1016/j.trc.2015.07.007 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

PDF failed to compile for issue #3607 with the following error:

[danielskatz]

@openjournals/dev - this is probably something I did wrong in a recent PR, but it's a bit tough to tell - can you help?

[arfon]

@whedon recommend-accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/ITSC.2018.8569552 is OK
- 10.1016/j.trc.2019.11.023 is OK
- 10.21949/1504477 is OK
- 10.1073/pnas.1820676116 is OK
- 10.1016/j.trc.2015.07.007 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

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

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#2600

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#2600, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

[danielskatz]

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

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

[whedon]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

[whedon]

🚨🚨🚨 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.03607 joss-papers#2601
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03607
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...

[danielskatz]

Congratulations to @OlgerSiebinga (Olger Siebinga)!!

And thanks to @rusu24edward and @tomalrussell for reviewing!
We couldn't do this without you

[whedon]

🎉🎉🎉 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.03607/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03607)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03607">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03607/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03607/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03607

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

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://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

[OlgerSiebinga]

Great! Thanks for all putting in the time for this review and for the good suggestions!