rxbag_plugins/Reviews/01082010_Doc_Review

Reviewer: Nate, Jeremy

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?
   • Nate: Yes JML: It could be made more clear that there are no actual APIs for these.
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?
   • Nate: yes
4. If there are hardware dependencies of the Package, are these documented?
   • Nate: N/A
5. Is it clear to an outside user what the roadmap is for the Package?
   • Nate: No. Not sure if this is applicable.
   • Tim: Added a Roadmap section at the end.
6. Is it clear to an outside user what the stability is for the Package?
   • Nate: Not really.
   • Tim: Answered in the Roadmap section.
7. Are concepts introduced by the Package well illustrated?
   • Nate: Yes
8. Is the research related to the Package referenced properly? i.e. can users easily get to relevant papers?
   • Nate: N/A
9. Are any mathematical formulas in the Package not covered by papers properly documented?
   • Nate: N/A

For each launch file in a Package

1. Is it clear how to run that launch file?
   • Nate: N/A
2. Does the launch file start up with no errors when run correctly?
   • Nate: N/A
3. Do the Nodes in that launch file correctly use ROS_ERROR/ROS_WARN/ROS_INFO logging levels?
   • Nate: N/A

Concerns / issues

Nate

It's not very clear what rxbag is good for. Should probably add a link to the "bag" and "rx_bag" documentation, and say something along the lines of "<link>rxbag</link> is a graphical framework for analyzing <link>bag</link> (log) files. rxbag_plugins provide various tools to process and visualize <link>messages</link> of different types."

In the API documentation fix: "rxbag_plugins is ..."

Is a roadmap needed for this package?

• Tim: altered description to read:

<p>rxbag_plugins contains plugins for the <a href="/wiki/rxbag">rxbag</a> GUI tool.</p><p><a href="/wiki/rxbag">rxbag</a> is a graphical framework for analyzing <a href="/wiki/Bags">bag</a> (log) files. rxbag_plugins provide visualizers for <a href="/wiki/Messages">messages</a> of different types.</p><p>Some icons from the Silk icon pack are used, which is available from <a href="http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/">famfamfam.com</a>.</p>

• Tim: fixed API documentation

Jeremy

• I would include a sentence to the effect of: "For information on creating new plugins for rxbag go to: foo", since this package is likely to be hit by people looking for information on writing plugins for rxbag.
  • Fixed.
• Otherwise, looks good.

Conclusion