realtime_tools/Reviews/2009-11-13_Doc_Review

Reviewer:

Instructions for doing a doc review

See DocReviewProcess for more instructions

  1. Does the documentation define the Users of your Package, i.e. for the expected usages of your Stack, which APIs will users engage with?
  2. Are all of these APIs documented?
  3. Do relevant usages have associated tutorials? (you can ignore this if a Stack-level tutorial covers the relevant usage), and are the indexed in the right places?
  4. If there are hardware dependencies of the Package, are these documented?
  5. Is it clear to an outside user what the roadmap is for the Package?
  6. Is it clear to an outside user what the stability is for the Package?
  7. Are concepts introduced by the Package well illustrated?
  8. Is the research related to the Package referenced properly? i.e. can users easily get to relevant papers?
  9. Are any mathematical formulas in the Package not covered by papers properly documented?

For each launch file in a Package

  1. Is it clear how to run that launch file?
  2. Does the launch file start up with no errors when run correctly?
  3. Do the Nodes in that launch file correctly use ROS_ERROR/ROS_WARN/ROS_INFO logging levels?

Concerns / issues

Wim

  • manifest is not up to date with removal of services, infuser and recorder. --> DONE in manifest

  • roadmap is not mentioned in manifest. Should mention we intend to include a new infuser --> DONE in manifest for infuser and realtime publisher

  • mention that users are writers of controllers --> DONE in wiki

  • API well documented in doxygen --> OK

  • Usage documentation on wiki is good, but only for advanced users. However, that might match the users we have in mind for this package. --> OK

Conclusion

Wiki: realtime_tools/Reviews/2009-11-13_Doc_Review (last edited 2009-11-13 20:38:42 by wim)

Except where otherwise noted, the ROS wiki is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0