sicktoolbox_wrapper/Reviews/Jan 11 2010 Doc Review

Reviewer: Patrick

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?

   • Yes, just the ROS API of the sicklms node. Doxygen clearly states there's no public code API.

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?
   • Yes, there's a tutorial for streaming data off the laser and visualizing it.
4. If there are hardware dependencies of the Package, are these documented?
   • Yes.
5. Is it clear to an outside user what the roadmap is for the Package?
   • Not really, but it seems implied that the package is feature complete.
6. Is it clear to an outside user what the stability is for the Package?
   • Yes, ROS API should be considered stable.
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?
   • N/A
9. 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?
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

Are print_scans and time_scans intended for public use? If so they should be documented.

• They're not intended for public use, and so will remain undocumented.

In the tutorial, maybe it's simpler to just set the parameters when running the node:

$ rosrun sicktoolbox_wrapper sicklms _port:=/dev/XXX _baud:=38400

• Added that variation to the tutorial.

Conclusion

Looks good. It's a simple package and usage is well-documented.