actionlib_msgs/Reviews/2009-09-30_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?
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

Stu

• The package summary should link to actionlib somewhere.
  • Tully: In trunk already.

• The comments in the GoalStatus message don't do a good enough job of distinguishing between PREEMPTING/PREEMPTED and RECALLING/RECALLED.

  • Vijay: Comments updated trunk/r24758

• The GoalID message isn't documented. It would be nice to know that id must be unique and what purpose stamp has.

  • Vijay: Comments updated trunk/r24758

Tully

• GoalStatus doesn't have a summary at the top

Conclusion