pr2_bringup/Reviews/2010-01-13_Doc_Review

Reviewer:

Instructions for doing a doc review

See DocReviewProcess for more instructions

Wim

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, users should typically not use the launch files in this package. The doc refers to the pr2 manual and the command line tool.
2. Are all of these APIs documented?
   • Yes
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?
   • The pr2 manual is the right place for detailed documentation.
4. If there are hardware dependencies of the Package, are these documented?
   • Yes. This package depends on the full pr2 robot
5. Is it clear to an outside user what the roadmap is for the Package?
   • N/A
6. Is it clear to an outside user what the stability is for the Package?
   • Yes, it will have the 1.0 label/
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?
9. N/A
10. Are any mathematical formulas in the Package not covered by papers properly documented?
    • N/A

For each launch file in a Package

1. Is it clear how to run that launch file?
   • Only one launch file is relevant. The doc shows how to run this.
2. Does the launch file start up with no errors when run correctly?
   • There still are errors, but they are caused by packages in other stacks, and have tickets.
3. Do the Nodes in that launch file correctly use ROS_ERROR/ROS_WARN/ROS_INFO logging levels?
   • Yes

Concerns / issues

Conclusion

• Good to go!