geometry/Reviews/2011-07 Electric_Doc_Review

Reviewer:

• Ken
• Wim

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

kwc:

• documentation does not not bullet change for Electric
• geometry/Tutorials shows image_geometry tutorials, no geometry tutorials (update: removed page)
• documentation does not note new kdl stack
• should documentation note 'geometry_tutorials' somewhere? (tf-specific, btw)
• kdl 'Code API' docs goes to useless doxygen page

• eigen_conversions API docs front page needs to point to useful docs instead of having default boilerplate. doc/api/eigen_conversions/html/

Conclusion

• Added link to eigen conversions 'namespacetf' API docs as that appears to be the most useful
• Deleted geometry/Tutorials page, look into making the gray link disappear.

kdl: Need to investigate how to remove 'Code API' link or make it go to right page