Reviewer: Wim Meeussen
Instructions for doing a doc review
See DocReviewProcess for more instructions
- Does the documentation define the Users of your Package, i.e. for the expected usages of your Stack, which APIs will users engage with?
- Are all of these APIs documented?
- 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?
- If there are hardware dependencies of the Package, are these documented?
- Is it clear to an outside user what the roadmap is for the Package?
- Is it clear to an outside user what the stability is for the Package?
- Are concepts introduced by the Package well illustrated?
- Is the research related to the Package referenced properly? i.e. can users easily get to relevant papers?
- Are any mathematical formulas in the Package not covered by papers properly documented?
For each launch file in a Package
- Is it clear how to run that launch file?
- Does the launch file start up with no errors when run correctly?
- Do the Nodes in that launch file correctly use ROS_ERROR/ROS_WARN/ROS_INFO logging levels?
Concerns / issues
- The documentation on how to use/create a filter is very minimalistic, but covers the most important aspects of filters. I guess the documentation could stay as it is.
Tully With below this should be fine.
- I would definitely add an example on implementing a filter. The tutorials that are linked in from the laser pipeline do not include an example on implementing a filter (only a filter chain with existing filters).
Add a simple troubleshooting page with links to trak (e.g. http://wiki/urdf/Troubleshooting)
- Stability and roadmap should get mentioned. Just a line in the package summary would do.