prosilica_gige_sdk/Reviews/2010-01-21_Doc_Review

Reviewer:

• Jeremy Leibs

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?

Jeremy

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?
   • I would prefer to see a more clear pointer to the the ros prosilica_cam package as the recommended way of using the prosilica. It should be made more clear that users only care about this package if they are writing their own software for interacting with the prosilica without going through ROS.
2. Are all of these APIs documented?
   • N/A -- external documentation link
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?
   • Tutorials point to prosilica_cam, which seems correct. Otherwise, external doc seems fine.
4. If there are hardware dependencies of the Package, are these documented?
   • Covered in package summary.
5. Is it clear to an outside user what the roadmap is for the Package?
   • Covered in package summary.
6. Is it clear to an outside user what the stability is for the Package?
   • Covered in package summary.
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?
   • N/A
2. Does the launch file start up with no errors when run correctly?
   • N/A
3. Do the Nodes in that launch file correctly use ROS_ERROR/ROS_WARN/ROS_INFO logging levels?
   • N/A

Concerns / issues

• Just needs slightly better explanation of this being a 3rdparty package that users should not need if they are using the ROS driver.

Conclusion