[REVIEW]: Tenta: Remote and Real-Time Sensor Network Management #7311

editorialbot · 2024-10-03T02:42:08Z

Submitting author: @empicano (Felix Böhm)
Repository: https://github.com/iterize/tenta
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.2.0
Editor: @kanishkan91
Reviewers: @abhishektiwari, @sash19
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.14597567

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5daf8d2d13c01da24e949c20a08d29d0"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5daf8d2d13c01da24e949c20a08d29d0/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5daf8d2d13c01da24e949c20a08d29d0/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/5daf8d2d13c01da24e949c20a08d29d0)

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

@abhishektiwari, 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 @kanishkan91 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 @sash19

📝 Checklist for @abhishektiwari

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2024-10-03T02:42:11Z

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 · 2024-10-03T02:42:29Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.08 s (1408.3 files/s, 347551.6 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSON                             10              0              0          18397
TypeScript                       41            336             17           3908
Python                           18            521            305           2055
YAML                              4              4              0            655
Markdown                         19            224              0            604
SQL                               2             70             49            347
TeX                               1              0              0            175
JavaScript                        6              4             77            121
Bourne Again Shell                7             25             43             98
CSS                               2             27              0             81
JSX                               1              0              5             77
TOML                              2             11              0             70
Dockerfile                        2             21             17             36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            115           1243            513          26624
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   130	Moritz Makowski
   102	Felix Böhm

editorialbot · 2024-10-03T02:42:33Z

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1139

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot · 2024-10-03T02:42:35Z

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot · 2024-10-03T02:42:43Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.5194/amt-14-1111-2021 is OK
- 10.5194/amt-13-3815-2020 is OK
- 10.1111/nph.17552 is OK
- 10.1145/1031495.1031522 is OK
- 10.1109/MIC.2006.26 is OK
- 10.5194/egusphere-egu21-15182 is OK
- 10.1021/es404610t is OK
- 10.1109/EWSN.2005.1462004 is OK
- 10.12854/erde-2019-420 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03075 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Advancing Urban Greenhouse Gas Monitoring: Develop...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: FROST Server
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Grafana
- No DOI given, and none found for title: TimescaleDB
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ThingsBoard
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ThingSpeak
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PostgreSQL
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Ivy

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.1017/cbo9780511586491.007 may be a valid DOI for title: polars

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-10-03T02:43:40Z

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

dostuffthatmatters · 2024-10-04T08:42:37Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-10-04T08:44:28Z

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

dostuffthatmatters · 2024-10-04T08:47:41Z

I added the research grant number to the manuscript.

kanishkan91 · 2024-10-09T17:18:28Z

@editorialbot add @sash19 as reviewer

editorialbot · 2024-10-09T17:18:32Z

@sash19 added to the reviewers list!

kanishkan91 · 2024-10-09T17:20:34Z

@empicano, @sash19, @abhishektiwari, This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above.

For @sash19, @abhishektiwari - Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread (in that first comment) 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.

As you are probably already aware, 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, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention #7311 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 the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please make a start well ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule.

Thanks in advance and let me know if you have any questions!!

empicano · 2024-10-09T17:44:00Z

Thank you @sash19 and @abhishektiwari for taking on the review, and thank you @kanishkan91 again for editing!

sash19 · 2024-10-09T18:18:33Z

Review checklist for @sash19

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/iterize/tenta?
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 (@empicano) 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?

abhishektiwari · 2024-10-13T23:04:34Z

Review checklist for @abhishektiwari

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/iterize/tenta?
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 (@empicano) 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?

kanishkan91 · 2024-12-04T21:44:22Z

@sash19 , @abhishektiwari Just wanted to check in. How's the review going thus far? I was hoping to get the initial reviews to the authors within the next couple of weeks. Do let me know if you need anything from my side.

abhishektiwari · 2024-12-13T05:32:16Z

Hi, I should be able to complete review by early next week.

sash19 · 2024-12-21T15:58:51Z

Hi, I have reviewed Tenta! My main comments are below. Please feel free to follow up with me for additional reviews or discussions:

There doesn't seem to be any testing framework explicitly outlined in the documentation to verify the functionality of the software.
The installation process is described in the documentation, but it can be extremely difficult if needed software (specifically poetry, python, and nodejs) are not installed. Many users may not have python3.11 pre-installed and the software doesn't seem to work with anything else. Same goes with poetry. Installing and correctly setting up the environment is not properly outlined. "Install xxx dependency" is not very helpful when the installation process can be lengthy and convoluted. Changing or adding python versions on most systems, for example, requires administrator permissions. However, other software especially package managers like pip and poetry may not work in a sudo/administrator environment as they separately manage user packages.
The installation issues above can be quite a pain for someone not very savvy or comfortable with such things. Maybe a docker container with all the dependencies can be provided alongside the instructions for people who may not want to deal with it.

abhishektiwari · 2024-12-22T23:52:05Z

@kanishkan91 I have completed my checklist and review.

The software addresses a clear need in sensor network management, particularly for research applications. The architecture is well-thought-out, emphasising flexibility and scalability. Good test coverage for both client and server. I recommend to accept the paper.

Few Language Nitpicks

Line 11-12: "when these networks are more than a few sensors in scale and/or their locations difficult to access"

Should be: "when these networks are more than a few sensors in scale and/or their locations are difficult to access"

Line 31-32: The IoT space is dominated by proprietary services e.g. from Amazon and Microsoft Azure

Something like: The IoT space is dominated by proprietary cloud services, e.g., from Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure.

Line 89: "CO2 sensor network in munich."

"Munich" should be capitalized

Nonblocking comments

I know paper mentioned the real-world validation through deployment with 20 CO2 sensors. It will be great if that was shared as working example as part of repository or through a tutorial on documentation pages. This will reduce the friction for anyone trying to figure out use case of this software.

Consider releasing dashboard as NPM package and server as Python module. This is mainly to reduce the friction to use/onboard to Tenta as well as introduce opportunities to extend core functionality via extension and plugins. This may require some change in API interfaces.

kanishkan91 · 2024-12-24T22:19:54Z

@empicano The reviewers have added their initial comments. Could you take a look and p;ost some responses. In particular I would take a look at @sash19's comments regarding the installation process and how the same can be streamlined. After you post your responses and address the same on your repo, we can take it from there.

empicano · 2024-12-27T13:35:48Z

Thank you @sash19 and thank you @abhishektiwari for your detailed reviews!

@sash19: The tests can be run with the ./scripts/test script, which spins up PostgreSQL and Mosquitto instances and then runs the tests with pytest. This is noted in the development documentation. The test coverage is currently at ~94%. Please let me know if I can clarify anything here!

Thanks also for reporting about the difficulties with the setup. I've added a Docker Compose file that handles dependencies like Python 3.11 and poetry automatically, and updated the README with instructions on how to run Tenta with Docker Compose.

@abhishektiwari: I adopted your wording suggestions verbatim. We've open-sourced the code of our CO2 sensor network as a real-word example and linked it in the documentation. Interesting idea to release Tenta as NPM package and Python module, too. This would indeed require some API changes, but you're right that the extensibility could be worth it. I will keep this in mind as future improvement.

Please let me know if any further changes are needed.

kanishkan91 · 2024-12-28T21:24:47Z

@empicano Thanks for the responses! I assume you made and merged a new PR with the updates?

@abhishektiwari and @sash19 - Could you take a look at the revised repo and see if your comments are addressed? If so, could you complete your checklists?

kanishkan91 · 2025-01-05T23:55:24Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2025-01-05T23:55:27Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2025-01-05T23:55:45Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.5194/amt-14-1111-2021 is OK
- 10.5194/amt-13-3815-2020 is OK
- 10.1111/nph.17552 is OK
- 10.1145/1031495.1031522 is OK
- 10.1109/MIC.2006.26 is OK
- 10.5194/egusphere-egu21-15182 is OK
- 10.1021/es404610t is OK
- 10.1109/EWSN.2005.1462004 is OK
- 10.12854/erde-2019-420 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03075 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.14562882 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Advancing Urban Greenhouse Gas Monitoring: Develop...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: FROST Server
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Grafana
- No DOI given, and none found for title: TimescaleDB
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ThingsBoard
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ThingSpeak
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PostgreSQL

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.1017/cbo9780511586491.007 may be a valid DOI for title: polars

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2025-01-05T23:57:20Z

👋 @openjournals/ese-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#6301, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

kanishkan91 · 2025-01-05T23:57:27Z

@empicano , @dostuffthatmatters I have recommended this for acceptance now. I will be reading through the paper for typos etc. shortly. The AEiC in this submission track will review shortly and if all goes well this will go live soon! Big thank you to @abhishektiwari and @sash19 for reviewing! JOSS is volunteer run and relies heavily on researchers such as yourself. If you are interested in reviewing for JOSS in the future, kindly register yourself at the reviewer hub here- https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/

empicano · 2025-01-06T00:13:32Z

Could you take a look at the missing DOI in the above?

10.1017/cbo9780511586491.007 is not the correct DOI for this citation. This cites https://github.com/pola-rs/polars, for which I sadly haven't found a DOI for.

dostuffthatmatters · 2025-01-06T20:57:15Z

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot · 2025-01-06T20:57:39Z

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.5194/amt-14-1111-2021 is OK
- 10.5194/amt-13-3815-2020 is OK
- 10.1111/nph.17552 is OK
- 10.1145/1031495.1031522 is OK
- 10.1109/MIC.2006.26 is OK
- 10.5194/egusphere-egu21-15182 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.7697217 is OK
- 10.1021/es404610t is OK
- 10.1109/EWSN.2005.1462004 is OK
- 10.12854/erde-2019-420 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.03075 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.14562882 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Advancing Urban Greenhouse Gas Monitoring: Develop...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: FROST Server
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Grafana
- No DOI given, and none found for title: TimescaleDB
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ThingsBoard
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ThingSpeak
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PostgreSQL

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

dostuffthatmatters · 2025-01-06T20:59:00Z

I added the correct DOI for Polars.

kthyng · 2025-01-08T20:36:06Z

Hi! I'll take over now as Track Associate Editor in Chief to do some final submission editing checks. After these checks are complete, I will publish your submission!

Are checklists all checked off?
Check that version was updated and make sure the version from JOSS matches github and Zenodo.
Check that software archive exists, has been input to JOSS, and title and author list match JOSS paper (or purposefully do not).
Check paper.

kthyng · 2025-01-08T20:37:25Z

@abhishektiwari Can you finish your review checklist if you are satisfied with this submission? Thank you!

kthyng · 2025-01-08T20:42:05Z

Please check the capitalization in your references. You can preserve capitalization by placing {} around characters/words in your .bib file. For example, "munich" is not capitalized but please check all references carefully.

empicano · 2025-01-08T22:16:23Z

Thank you @kthyng for double checking!

"munich" is not capitalized

Good catch! I added brackets around "Munich" and "Swiss".

empicano · 2025-01-08T22:16:28Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2025-01-08T22:18:03Z

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

kthyng · 2025-01-09T14:39:13Z

Ok the paper looks good. I'm thinking we're not going to hear back about the slightly unfinished checklist but it looks like @abhishektiwari's intention is that the review is finished.

kthyng · 2025-01-09T14:39:20Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T14:39:23Z

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

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T14:46:07Z

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Böhm
  given-names: Felix
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2179-9934"
- family-names: Makowski
  given-names: Moritz
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2948-2993"
- family-names: Aigner
  given-names: Patrick
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1530-415X"
- family-names: Chen
  given-names: Jia
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6350-6610"
contact:
- family-names: Böhm
  given-names: Felix
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2179-9934"
- family-names: Chen
  given-names: Jia
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6350-6610"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14597567
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Böhm
    given-names: Felix
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2179-9934"
  - family-names: Makowski
    given-names: Moritz
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2948-2993"
  - family-names: Aigner
    given-names: Patrick
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1530-415X"
  - family-names: Chen
    given-names: Jia
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6350-6610"
  date-published: 2025-01-09
  doi: 10.21105/joss.07311
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 105
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 7311
  title: "Tenta: Remote and Real-Time Sensor Network Management"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07311"
  volume: 10
title: "Tenta: Remote and Real-Time Sensor Network Management"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T14:46:11Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T14:46:12Z

🦋🦋🦋 👉 Bluesky post for this paper 👈 🦋🦋🦋

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T14:46:13Z

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

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.07311 joss-papers#6316
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07311
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

kthyng · 2025-01-09T15:12:37Z

Congratulations on your new publication @empicano and @dostuffthatmatters! Many thanks to editor @kanishkan91 and to reviewers @abhishektiwari and @sash19 for your time, hard work, and expertise!! JOSS wouldn't be able to function nor succeed without your efforts.

Note we have a new tool for reviewers! You can go to https://joss.theoj.org/papers/reviewed_by/@your-github-username to see the JOSS submissions you have reviewed, and you can also copy a badge there with the number of your JOSS reviews.

@empicano If you'd like to join JOSS as a reviewer, please sign up at https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join!

editorialbot · 2025-01-09T15:12:40Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.07311/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07311)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07311">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07311/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.07311/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07311

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-open-journals

empicano · 2025-01-09T16:36:55Z

Thank you @kanishkan91, @abhishektiwari, @sash19, and @kthyng for your efforts and expertise as reviewers and editors from my co-authors and me. It's very much appreciated.

sash19 · 2025-01-09T17:07:27Z

Congratulations!! Glad to be a part of this. Feel free to reach out for anything else which may be needed.

editorialbot added Python review TeX Track: 6 (ESE) Earth Sciences and Ecology TypeScript labels Oct 3, 2024

editorialbot assigned kanishkan91 Oct 3, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Oct 3, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: Tenta: Remote and Real-Time Sensor Network Management #6926

Closed

editorialbot added the Shell label Oct 3, 2024

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Jan 5, 2025

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Jan 9, 2025

kthyng closed this as completed Jan 9, 2025

[REVIEW]: Tenta: Remote and Real-Time Sensor Network Management #7311

[REVIEW]: Tenta: Remote and Real-Time Sensor Network Management #7311

Comments

editorialbot commented Oct 3, 2024 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Oct 3, 2024

editorialbot commented Oct 3, 2024

editorialbot commented Oct 3, 2024

editorialbot commented Oct 3, 2024

editorialbot commented Oct 3, 2024

editorialbot commented Oct 3, 2024

dostuffthatmatters commented Oct 4, 2024

editorialbot commented Oct 4, 2024

dostuffthatmatters commented Oct 4, 2024

kanishkan91 commented Oct 9, 2024

editorialbot commented Oct 9, 2024

kanishkan91 commented Oct 9, 2024

empicano commented Oct 9, 2024

sash19 commented Oct 9, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @sash19

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

abhishektiwari commented Oct 13, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @abhishektiwari

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

kanishkan91 commented Dec 4, 2024

abhishektiwari commented Dec 13, 2024

sash19 commented Dec 21, 2024 • edited Loading

abhishektiwari commented Dec 22, 2024 • edited Loading

Few Language Nitpicks

Nonblocking comments

kanishkan91 commented Dec 24, 2024

empicano commented Dec 27, 2024

kanishkan91 commented Dec 28, 2024

kanishkan91 commented Jan 5, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 5, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 5, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 5, 2025

kanishkan91 commented Jan 5, 2025

empicano commented Jan 6, 2025

dostuffthatmatters commented Jan 6, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 6, 2025

dostuffthatmatters commented Jan 6, 2025

kthyng commented Jan 8, 2025 • edited Loading

kthyng commented Jan 8, 2025

kthyng commented Jan 8, 2025

empicano commented Jan 8, 2025

empicano commented Jan 8, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 8, 2025

kthyng commented Jan 9, 2025

kthyng commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

kthyng commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Jan 9, 2025

empicano commented Jan 9, 2025

sash19 commented Jan 9, 2025

editorialbot commented Oct 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading

sash19 commented Oct 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

abhishektiwari commented Oct 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

sash19 commented Dec 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading

abhishektiwari commented Dec 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

kthyng commented Jan 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading