[Documentation] [TitleIndex] [WordIndex


Reviewer: Patrick

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?
    • Yes - most users of ROS, particularly those interested in high performance. The roscpp overview does a good job of highlighting the most important APIs.
  2. Are all of these APIs documented?
    • Yes, but nitpicks under concerns/issues.
  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?
    • Yes, the fundamentals (topics, services, parameters) are well covered. Nitpicks under concerns/issues.
  4. If there are hardware dependencies of the Package, are these documented?
    • N/A
  5. Is it clear to an outside user what the roadmap is for the Package?
    • Should link to the ROS roadmap like the rospy page does.
    • Josh: FIXED
  6. Is it clear to an outside user what the stability is for the Package?
    • It's implied that roscpp is stable.
  7. Are concepts introduced by the Package well illustrated?
    • Yes, the links to ROS concept pages are useful.
  8. Is the research related to the Package referenced properly? i.e. can users easily get to relevant papers?
    • N/A
  9. Are any mathematical formulas in the Package not covered by papers properly documented?
    • N/A

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




Overall the documentation is really good. The tutorials and overview give a beginning user plenty to go on. A lot of my nitpicks are that the dustier corners of roscpp aren't exhaustively documented, which isn't critical.

2019-12-07 13:03