[REVIEW]: Unsupervised learning approach towards anomaly detection in compat logs with ADE

[whedon]

Submitting author: @ayush-1506 (Ayush Shridhar)
Repository: https://github.com/openmainframeproject/ade.git
Version: v1.0.5
Editor: @gkthiruvathukal
Reviewer: @arcuri82, @mdpiper
Archive: Pending

⚠️ 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/efd6f7dbf076e56dd6d3287e90b4e6e7"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/efd6f7dbf076e56dd6d3287e90b4e6e7/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/efd6f7dbf076e56dd6d3287e90b4e6e7/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/efd6f7dbf076e56dd6d3287e90b4e6e7)

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

@arcuri82 & @mdpiper, 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 @gkthiruvathukal 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 @arcuri82

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 (@ayush-1506) 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: 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?
• 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: Do the authors clearly state 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 @mdpiper

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 (@ayush-1506) 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: 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?
• 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: Do the authors clearly state 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. @arcuri82, @mdpiper 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]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/ciss.2019.8693024 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[whedon]

Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=2.86 s (170.1 files/s, 26621.5 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                      files          blank        comment           code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Java                            444          10823          23275          37558
Bourne Shell                     10            271            359            895
XSD                               5             88             76            542
XSLT                              3            154             54            541
XML                               6             23             45            468
Maven                             3              6             16            276
Markdown                          2             56              0            191
CSS                               1             16              0             85
Bourne Again Shell                8             44            161             81
TeX                               1              2              0             27
HTML                              2              5             14             21
JSON                              1              0              0             17
YAML                              1              1              0              8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            487          11489          24000          40710
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Statistical information for the repository '08796dda776e3e3d3ac051b4' was
gathered on 2021/02/22.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Chris Brooker                    1         68690              0           92.61
Faisal Hameed                   13           190            260            0.61
Jim Caffrey                     26          1961            674            3.55
Neale Ferguson                   3           271             41            0.42
ayman abdelghany                 3           157            135            0.39
ayush-1506                      13          1673             72            2.35
davidoh                          2            25             22            0.06

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
Faisal Hameed               161           84.7         57.9                0.00
James Caffrey              1554          100.0         53.9               23.68
Jim Caffrey                  11            0.6         58.0                0.00
Neale Ferguson              131           48.3         58.1                0.00
ayman abdelghany            130           82.8         56.1                0.00
ayush-1506                 1619           96.8          6.5               42.62
cbrooker27                68025          100.0          0.0               36.31
davidoh                      25          100.0         43.3                0.00

[whedon]

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

[whedon]

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

[whedon]

👋 @arcuri82, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

[ayush-1506]

Thanks a lot for the reviews, @arcuri82 and @mdpiper . I'll start working on making the changes this week.

[mdpiper]

Hi @ayush-1506 -- I have a minor question that doesn't merit an issue. I installed ADE locally and ran the script analysis_comp_test.sh described at the bottom of the Installing an ADE instance section. Where does the output of this example go?

[mdpiper]

Hi @gkthiruvathukal -- I've finished my review, pending responses to a series of issues I've opened in the authors' repository.

[ayush-1506]

Where does the output of this example go?

@mdpiper The outputs generally go in $ADE_HOME/baseline/output. You can find the generated xml files there. This is indicated by the BASELINE_OUTPUT_DIR variable : here.

[gkthiruvathukal]

@mdpiper Thanks for your review.

@arcuri82 Can you give an update on your review status?

[arcuri82]

@gkthiruvathukal I am waiting the authors to address the points raised at openmainframeproject/ade#85

[gkthiruvathukal]

Thanks, @arcuri82! Appreciate all of your help.

[gkthiruvathukal]

@ayush-1506 Just following up to see whether you have been able to resolve openmainframeproject/ade#85 so we can move toward acceptance.

[ayush-1506]

@gkthiruvathukal Yes, will be pushing a few changes this week. Thanks for your patience. Will ping here once we can move forward.

[danielskatz]

👋 @ayush-1506 - Can you provide an update at this point?

[gkthiruvathukal]

@openjournals/joss-eics I think we've waited long enough for a response here. I propose that we reject. Is this something I can do on my own?

[ayush-1506]

Hi @gkthiruvathukal @danielskatz sorry to keep you waiting. There are a few reviews on the repo side that we're having trouble resolving and I don't have an ETA which means we've unfortunately reached a limbo here. I think we might have to reject or mark it stale for the moment. Thanks a lot for your time and effort.
I'll add another re-submission in the future once those issues get resolved.

[arfon]

OK thanks @ayush-1506. I agree I think it's time to close this review.

@arcuri82, @mdpiper, @gkthiruvathukal – many thanks for your efforts here, sorry this submission didn't make it :-(

[arfon]

@whedon reject

[whedon]

Paper rejected.