pr2_controller_manager/Reviews/2009-11-05_Doc_Review
Reviewer:
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
Vijay
(Fixed various minor grammatical errors)
I would swap the “From the command line” and “From a launch file” sections. When introducing spawner, explain why it's better. Add a sentence like:
You could run pr2_controller_manager to start controllers from within a launch file. However, the controller would then stay up even after the launch file is taken down. Instead, use the spawner.py tool. ...
I thought spawner.py is going to be renamed to be just spawner?
Get rid of or document the controller_manager.launch file.
