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

  • Eitan
    • The documentation is extensive on how to bring up and run the viewer, but it lacks any explanation of how to actually use the viewer. It would be nice to add documentation on things like tree vs graph view, the "Show Implicit" button, the path box, the depth box, etc. Also, it would be nice to explain what the different colors in the viewer mean. There's a nice opportunity for a video here perhaps.


  • Wim
    • Added documentation with lots of images on the main page to explain what exactly the viewer shows, and what buttons, etc are available.

Wiki: smach_viewer/Reviews/2010-08-10_Doc_Review (last edited 2010-08-10 18:27:55 by wim)