sicktoolbox/Reviews/Jan 11 2010 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?

   • Yes, from what I can tell, anyone who's interested in using sicktoolbox over ROS.

2. Are all of these APIs documented?
   • Yes, ROS API is clearly documented. No doxygen for source codes, but from the use case, this might not be necessary.
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.
4. If there are hardware dependencies of the Package, are these documented?

   • Yes, through sicktoolbox.

5. Is it clear to an outside user what the roadmap is for the Package?
   • Roadmap unspecified.
6. Is it clear to an outside user what the stability is for the Package?

   • Stated on wiki: The ROS API of this node should be considered stable.

7. Are concepts introduced by the Package well illustrated?
   • N/A
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

• No launch files
• 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

• print_scans.cpp and time_scans.cpp are not documented. Command line usage help seems sufficient though.

  • Indeed, the mainpage.dox says, "This package has no released code API."

• Intensity units not specified.

  • The documentation for the LaserScan message (doc/api/sensor_msgs/html/msg/LaserScan.html) says, "intensity data [device-specific units]."

Conclusion