Reviewer: Wim Meeussen

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

  • 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.

    • Tully Done

  • Stability and roadmap should get mentioned. Just a line in the package summary would do.
    • Tully Done



Wiki: filters/Reviews/2009-10-06_Doc_Review (last edited 2009-10-07 01:50:18 by TullyFoote)