pr2_gazebo_plugins/Reviews/2010-01-20_Doc_Review

Reviewer:

• kwc

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?

Concerns / issues

kwc

measure_power.py needs to be documented

check_glx.py needs to be documented

Messages and service documentation is lacking.

Doxygen appears to be for incorrect, higher-level package

I can't find VoidVoid in use anywhere

• this is being deleted

Pulled in XML configuration from doxygen into wiki page

Added ROS API documentation

Conclusion

ROS API looks good

doxygen looks good