This is the multi-page printable view of this section. Click here to print.

Return to the regular view of this page.

Component Implementation

Component Implementation

Component Documentation

1 - ArchGlbPrm Review

Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Source Code
PolySpace

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet
























Rev 7.020-Apr-15

Peer Review Summary Sheet


























Synergy Project Name:


kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which component is being reviewed. This should be the Module Short Name from Synergy Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this form is not attaced to the the wrong change request. AR999A_ArchGlbPrm_Impl
Revision / Baseline:


kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which Synergy revision of this component is being reviewed Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this form is not attaced to the the wrong change request. 1.3.0

























Change Owner:


kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify the developer who made the change(s) Rationale: A change request may have more than one resolver, this will help identify who made what change. Change owner identification may be required by indusrty standards. Avinash James
Change Request ID:


EA4#10351





























kzshz2: Intended Use: Intended to identify at a high level to the reviewers which areas of the component have been changed. Rationale: This will be good information to know when ensuring appropriate reviews have been completed. Modified File Types:















































































































































































kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify who where the reviewers, what they reviewed, and if the reviewed changes have been approved to release the code for testing. Comments here should be at a highlevel, the specific comments should be present on the specific review form sheet. Rationale: Since this Form will be attached to the Change Request it will confirm the approval and provides feedback in case of audits. ADD DR Level Move reviewer and approval to individual checklist form Review Checklist Summary:






















































Reviewed:































MDD


YesSource Code


YesPolySpace









































Integration Manual


Davinci Files








































































Comments:

New constants added



























































































General Guidelines:
- The reviews shall be performed over the portions of the component that were modified as a result of the Change Request. (Note: If this peer review form was not
completed for pervious versions of this component, the Change Owner should review the entire component and complete the checklist in its entirety prior and check
the form into Syngery. This may be done prior to reviewing the modifications for this Change Result)
- The Change Owner shall responsible for completing the entire checklist (Pre and Group review items) prior holding the initial group review.
- New components should include FDD Owner and Intergator as apart of the Group Review Board (Source Code, Integration Manual, and Davinci Files)
- Select "Yes" and add "N/A" to the comments for checklist items that are not applicable for this change
- Enter any rework required into the comment field and select No. When the rework is complete, review again using this same review sheet and select Yes. Add date and additional comment stating that the rework is completed.
- To review a component with multiple source code files create a Source code tab for each source file.
- .h file should be reviewed with the source file as part of the source file.




















Sheet 2: Synergy Project

Peer Review Meeting Log (Component Synergy Project Review)



















































Quality Check Items:




































Rationale is required for all answers of No










Prep project is updated from correct basline








Yes
Comments:










































Project contains necessary subprojects








Yes
Comments:










































Project contains the correct version of subprojects








Yes
Comments:










































Design subproject is correct version








Yes
Comments:











































General Notes / Comments:



























































LN: Intended Use: Identify who were the reviewers and if the reviewed changes have been approved. Rationale: Since this Form will be attached to the Change Request it will confirm the approval and provides feedback in case of audits. KMC: Group Review Level removed in Rev 4.0 since the design review is not checked in until approved, so it would always be DR4. Review Board:


























Change Owner:

Avinash James


Review Date :

03/22/17
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Kathleen Creager


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):









































































Sheet 3: Source Code






















Rev 7.020-Apr-15
Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

























Source File Name:




kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which .asm, .c, or .h file is being reviewed Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this sheet is not attached to the wrong design review form. ArchGlbPrm.h
Source File Revision:


kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which version of the source file is being review. Rationale: Required for traceability between source code and review. Auditors will likely require this. 3

























Module Design Document Name:




kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which version of the MDD this source file was written against. Rationale: Needed for traceability between source code and MDD N/A
MDD Revision:


kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which version of the MDD this source file was written against. Rationale: Needed for traceability between source code and MDD N/A

























FDD/SCIR/DSR/FDR/CMS Revision:




nz63rn: Intended Use: Identify which version of which FDD/CMS/SER this source file was written against. Rationale: Needed for traceability between source code and FDD/CMS/SER AR999A_ArchGlbPrm_Design v1.3.0




















nz63rn: Intended Use: Identify which version of which FDD/CMS/SER this source file was written against. Rationale: Needed for traceability between source code and FDD/CMS/SER





Quality Check Items:



































Rationale is required for all answers of No









Working EA4 Software Naming Convention followed:















































for variable names







N/A
Comments:

















































for constant names







Yes
Comments:

Reviewed the changes














































for function names







N/A
Comments:

















































for other names (component, memory







N/A
Comments:










mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)




































All paths assign a value to outputs, ensuring








N/A
Comments:









all outputs are initialized prior to being written





































All source code changes have Requirements Tracability








N/A
Comments:









tags in the component





































No Variables are declared at the Module level.








N/A
Comments:
























Synergy version matches change history





kzshz2: Intended Use: Indicate that the the versioning was confirmed by the peer reviewer(s). Rationale: There have been many occassions where versions were not updated in files and as a result Unit Test were referencing wrong versions. This often time leads to the need to re-run of batch tests.


Yes
Comments:



and Version Control version in file comment block





































Change log contains detailed description of changes








Yes
Comments:



and Work CR number





































Code accurately implements FDD (Document or Model)








Yes
Comments:










































No Compiler Errors or Warnings verified


KMC: Intended Use: To confirm no compiler errors or warnings exist for the code under review (warnings from contract header files may be ignored). Rationale: This is needed to ensure there will be no errors discovered at the time of integration. A Sandox project should be used; QAC can find compiler errors but not warnings.





Yes
Comments:
















































Is component.h included








N/A
Comments:
























Are all includes actually needed? System includes








Yes
Comments:









only allowed in Nexteer library components





































Software Design and Coding Standards followed:











Version:2.1

























Code comments are clear, correct, and adequate







Yes
Comments:










and have been updated for the change: [N40] and













all other rules in the same section as rule [N40],






















plus [N75], [N12], [N23], [N33], [N37], [N38],






















[N48], [N54], [N77], [N79], [N72]














































Source file (.c and .h) comment blocks are per







Yes
Comments:










standards and contain correct information: [N41], [N42]





































Function comment blocks are per standards and







N/A
Comments:










contain correct information: [N43]





































Code formatting (indentation, placement of







Yes
Comments:










braces, etc.) is per standards: [N5], [N55], [N56],













[N57], [N58], [N59]














































Embedded constants used per standards; no







Yes
Comments:










"magic numbers": [N12]





































Memory mapping for non-RTE code, function parameters







N/A
Comments:










to





































All execution-order-dependent code can be







N/A
Comments:










recognized by the compiler: [N80]





































No possibility of a non-terminating loop: [N63]







N/A
Comments:

















































No possibility of divide by zero: [N65]







N/A
Comments:

















































All integer division and modulus operations







N/A
Comments:










handle negative numbers correctly: [N76]





































All typecasting and fixed point arithmetic,







N/A
Comments:










including all use of fixed point macros and













timer functions, is correct and has no possibility






















of unintended overflow or underflow: [N66]














































No possibility of converting a negative floating







N/A
Comments:










point value to an unsigned type: [N67]





































All conversions between signed and unsigned







N/A
Comments:










types handle msb==1 as intended: [N78]





































No possibility of dereferencing a null







N/A
Comments:










pointer: [N70]





































Module outputs are limited to the legal range







N/A
Comments:










defined in the FDD DataDict.m file : [N53]





































All code is mapped with FDD (all FDD







N/A
Comments:










subfunctions and/or model blocks identified













with code comments; all code corresponds to






















some FDD subfunction and/or model block): [N40]













































No violations of other coding standard rules








Yes
Comments:









identified during review





































Incorrect items that require FDD changes








N/A
Comments:









ie (display variables used incorrectly, limiting on outputs,













NvM struct types, divide by zero, other?)
















































General Notes / Comments:

















































































LN: Intended Use: Identify who were the reviewers and if the reviewed changes have been approved. Rationale: Since this Form will be attached to the Change Request it will confirm the approval and provides feedback in case of audits. KMC: Group Review Level removed in Rev 4.0 since the design review is not checked in until approved, so it would always be DR4. Review Board:


























Change Owner:

Avinash James


Review Date :

03/22/17
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Kathleen Creager


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):









































































Sheet 4: PolySpace






















Rev 1.28-Jun-15
Peer Review Meeting Log (QAC/PolySpace Review)


























Source File Name:


ArchGlbPrm.h











Source File Revision:


3

Source File Name:















Source File Revision:





Source File Name:















Source File Revision:





Source File Name:















Source File Revision:






























EA4 Static Analysis Compliance Guideline version:







01.01.00














Poly Space version:


Windows User: eg. 2013b 2013B
Polyspace sub project version:




Windows User: eg. TL108a_PolyspaceSuprt_1.0.0 NA

QAC version:


Windows User: eg 8.1.1-R 8.1.1-R
QAC sub project version:




Windows User: eg. TL_100A_1.1.0 1.2.0


























Quality Check Items:




































Rationale is required for all answers of No



































Contract Folder's header files are appropriate and





kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify that the contract folder contains only the information required for this component. All other variables, constants, function prototypes, etc. should be removed. Rationale: This will help avoid unit testers having to considers object not used. It will also avoid having other files required for QAC.


Yes
Comments:




function prototypes match the latest component version







































100% Compliance to the EA4 Static AnalysisYes
Comments:





Compliance Guideline





























Are previously added justification and deviation








Yes
Comments:





comments still appropriate






































Do all MISRA deviation comments use approved








Yes
Comments:





deviation tags






































Cyclomatic complexity and Static path count OK






Creager, Kathleen: use Browse Function Metrics, STCYC and STPTH

Yes
Comments:





for all functions in the component per Design














and Coding Standards rule [N47]

































































































General Notes / Comments:







































































LN: Intended Use: Identify who were the reviewers and if the reviewed changes have been approved. Rationale: Since this Form will be attached to the Change Request it will confirm the approval and provides feedback in case of audits. KMC: Group Review Level removed in Rev 4.0 since the design review is not checked in until approved, so it would always be DR4. Review Board:


























Change Owner:

Avinash James


Review Date :

03/22/17
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Kathleen Creager


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):