Check the file types that needed modification for the Work CR(s); macros for the check boxes will populate the appropriate checklist tabs for the review.

Review Checklist Summary:

Reviewed:

At start of review, all items below should be marked "No". At the end of the review, all items should be marked "Yes" or "N/A" where N/A indicates the reviewers have reviewed the existing (unchanged) item and confirmed no updates were needed for the Work CR(s).

MDD

Yes

Source Code

Yes

PolySpace

Integration Manual

Yes

Davinci Files

All required reviewers participated

Comments:

Time spent ( to the nearest half hour)

review preparation

review meeting

review follow-up

Change owner:

0.5

Component developer reviewers:

0.5

1.5

Other reviewers:

Total hours

0.5

1.5

Content reviewed

Lines of code:

200

Elements of .arxml content:

150

Pages of documentation:

General Guidelines:
- The reviews shall be performed over the portions of the component that were modified as a result of the Change Request.
- New components should include SWC Owner and/or SWC Design author and Integrator and/or SW Lead as apart of the Group Review Board (Source Code, Integration Manual, and Davinci Files)
- 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 use the "Add Source" button to create a Source code tab for each source file.
- .h file should be reviewed with the source file as part of the source file.

Each peer review shall start with a clean copy of the latest peer review checklist template. Save in the doc folder of the component implementation, with the file name in the format SWCShortName_Review.xlsx. If the existing review in Synergy has a different name, the name must be changed IN SYNERGY (rather than by syncing in a new file with the new name) so that the file history will be properly maintained.

Before the peer review, the change owner shall: (NOTE - time for completing these items is to be counted as the Change Owner Review Prep Time)
o Review the previous component peer review and copy any relevant comments to the new review sheet.
o Review all checklist items and make all corrections needed, so that the component is ready for peer review. The expectation is that peer review should find very few issues,
because the change owner has already used the checklist to ensure the component changes are complete and correct.
o Fill in all file name and version information as needed on peer review checklist tabs (file names may be copied from the previous peer review where appropriate)
o Fill in checklist answers (Yes/No/NA pulldowns) ONLY on those items which are NA for the current change. All other checklist items should be blank going into the review
meeting.

During the peer review meeting:
o For each page of the review, first review the items already marked as N/A for this change, to confirm that reviewers agree with this assessment; change the checklist box to
blank if it is found that the item does apply.
o Then review the items with the checklist box blank. After reviewing each of these items, the checklist box will be marked as "Yes", or the checklist box will be marked as
"No" with needed rework indicated or with rationale indicated.
o If any items are marked "No" with rationale indicated, this must be approved by a software supervisor or the software manager; there is a line in the "Review Board" section
of each tab to indicate who approved the "No" items on that tab.

Sheet 2: Synergy Project

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Peer Review Meeting Log (Component Synergy Project Review)

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

New baseline version name from Summary Sheet follows

Yes

Comments:

naming convention

Project contains necessary subprojects

Yes

Comments:

Project contains the correct version of subprojects

Yes

Comments:

Design subproject is correct version

N/A

Comments:

No design - planned for future relase with

architecture changes

.gpj file in tools folder matches .gpj generated by TL109 script

Yes

Comments:

File/folder structure is correct per documentation in

Yes

Comments:

TL109A_SwcSuprt

General Notes / Comments:

Review Board:

Change Owner:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

05/18/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Akilan Rathakrishnan

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Rationale/justification for items marked "No" approved by:

Sheet 3: Davinci Files

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (Davinci Review)

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

Only StdDef Port interfaces and datatypes are used

Yes

Comments:

(compare against TL107B to ensure only implementation

data types are used)

OBSOLETE/OBSELETE doesn’t appear in any arxml file

Yes

Comments:

Do all port interface names end in PortIf and a sequence

Yes

Comments:

number

Non-program-specific components saved

Yes

Comments:

in Autosar 4.0.3 format

For components with generated configurable content:

N/A

Comments:

*Cfg.arxml.TT: Verfied Davinci Configurator imported the

change correctly

*Cfg.h.TT: Verfied Davinci Configurator generates

N/A

Comments:

the configuration header file(s) correctly

All changed files have been compared against previous

Yes

Comments:

versions (If available) and changes match changes

needed as described by the work CR(s), all parent CRs

and parent anomalies, and the SWC Design change log.

Davinci files accurately implement SWC Design (DataDict.m

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

file) in all areas where arxml was changed and/or the

DataDict.m file was changed as shown by

comparing the DataDict.m from the current SWC Design

with the DataDict.m used in the previous implementation.

(This is NOT always the predecessor.)

Automated validation check is performed with no issues found

Yes

Comments:

Naming conventions followed. All names should

Yes

Comments:

Conventions followed, no DataDict

match DataDict.m

Sender/Receiver port properties match DataDict.m file

N/A

Comments:

No sender/receiver ports

(name, data type, direction)

Calibration port properties match DataDict.m file

N/A

Comments:

No calibrations

(name, data type)

Sender/Receiver port initialization values match

N/A

Comments:

No sender/receiver ports

DataDict.m file and have been converted to counts

for fixed point types

Calibration port initialization values match

N/A

Comments:

No calibrations

DataDict.m file and have been converted to counts

for fixed point types

Mapping set and all unused items have been

Yes

Comments:

removed

All sender/receiver port read/writes using "Write (explicit)"

N/A

Comments:

No sender/receiver ports

and "Read (explicit by argument)"(List justification if not)

Runnable calling frequencies match DataDict.m file

N/A

Comments:

No periodic runnables

Runnable port access matches the DataDict.m file

N/A

Comments:

No datadict - runnables are called from

non-RTE servers so therefore mapped to init1

DataDict.m display variables: created as

N/A

Comments:

No DataDict - no display variables

PerInstanceMemory. Name and data type match DataDict.m file.

Per Instance Memory names and data types

N/A

Comments:

No DataDict - no PIM

match DataDict.m file

NVM blocks match DataDict.m file

N/A

Comments:

No DataDict - no NvM

(Named per naming convention. Default block

used if specified in DataDict.m file. Data type

matches DatatDict.m file)

Component is correct component type

Yes

Comments:

General Notes / Comments:

Review Board:

Change Owner:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

05/18/18

Component Type :

Application

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Akilan Rathakrishnan

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Integrator and or
SW lead:

Comments:

Other Reviewer(s):

Rationale/justification for items marked "No" approved by:

Sheet 4: Source Code

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

Source File Name:

SrvFED1.c

Source File Revision:

Header File Name:

NxtrMfgSrvCfg.h

Header File Revision:

MDD Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

SWC Design Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

EA4 Common Naming Convention followed:

Version:1.02

EA4 Software Naming Convention followed:

Version:

for variable names

Yes

Comments:

for constant names

Yes

Comments:

for function names

Yes

Comments:

for other names (component, memory

Yes

Comments:

mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)

Verified no possibility of uninitialized variables being

Yes

Comments:

written to component outputs or IRVs

Any requirements traceability tags have been removed

Yes

Comments:

from at least the changed areas of code

All variables are declared at the function level.

Yes

Comments:

Synergy version matches change history

Yes

Comments:

Version 1

and Version Control version in file comment block

Change log contains detailed description of changes

Yes

Comments:

(including any anomaly number(s) being fixed) and

Work CR number

Code accurately implements SWC Design (Document

N/A

Comments:

No design/model

or Model) in all areas where code was changed and/or

Simulink model was color-coded as changed and/or

mentioned in SWC Design change log.

Code comparison against previous version matches

N/A

Comments:

Initial version

changes needed as described by the work CR(s), all

parent CRs and parent anomalies, and the SWC

Design change log.

Verified no Compiler Errors or Warnings

Yes

Comments:

(and verified for all possible combinations

of any conditionally compiled code)

Component.h is included

N/A

Comments:

No header

All other includes are actually needed. (System includes

Yes

Comments:

only allowed in Nexteer library components)

Software Design and Coding Standards followed:

Version:

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

Comments:

Using generated comment blocks that

contain correct information: [N43]

match other CMS service server runnables

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

Comments:

Known issue - planned for correction in

is per standard

tools in future update of TL113A

All access of motor control loop data uses macros

N/A

Comments:

No MotCtrl signals

generated by the motor control manager

All loops have termination conditions that ensure

N/A

Comments:

No loops

finite loop iterations: [N63]

All divides protect against divide by zero

N/A

Comments:

No division

if needed: [N65]

All integer division and modulus operations

N/A

Comments:

No division

handle negative numbers correctly: [N76]

All typecasting and fixed point arithmetic,

N/A

Comments:

No typecasting

including all use of fixed point macros and

timer functions, is correct and has no possibility

of unintended overflow or underflow: [N66]

All float-to-unsigned conversions ensure the.

N/A

Comments:

No float to unsigned conversion

float value is non-negative: [N67]

All conversions between signed and unsigned

N/A

Comments:

No signed to unsigned conversion

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

All pointer dereferencing protects against

Yes

Comments:

null pointer if needed: [N70]

Component outputs are limited to the legal range

N/A

Comments:

No outputs

defined in the SWC Design DataDict.m file : [N53]

All code is mapped with SWC Design (all SWC

N/A

Comments:

No design

Design subfunctions and/or model blocks identified

with code comments; all code corresponds to

some SWC Design subfunction and/or model block):

[N40]

Any other violations of design and coding

Yes

Comments:

standards noticed during the review are noted in the

comments section for rework.

Anomaly or Design Work CR created

N/A

Comments: List Anomaly or CR numbers

for any SWC Design corrections needed

General Notes / Comments:

Review Board:

Change Owner:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

05/18/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Akilan Rathakrishnan

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

SWC owner and/or
SWC Design author:

Comments:

Integrator and or
SW lead:

Comments:

Unit test co-ordinator:

Comments:

Other Reviewer(s):

Rationale/justification for items marked "No" approved by:

Sheet 5: PolySpace

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (PolySpace Review)

Source File Name:

ProgMfgSrv.c

Source File Revision:

Source File Name:

SrvFED0.c

Source File Revision:

Source File Name:

SrvFED1.c

Source File Revision:

EA4 Static Analysis Compliance Guideline version:

1.04

Poly Space version:

2013b

TL109A sub project version:

2.3.0

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

tools/local folders' header files are appropriate and

Yes

Comments:

function prototypes match the latest component version

100% Compliance to the EA4 Static Analysis

Yes

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

For any component source files (.c, .h, generated Cfg.c and Cfg.h)

Yes

Comments:

No build constants

with conditional compilation, has Polyspace been run with all

combinations of build constants that can be used together in a build?

(Note which conditional compilation results have been archived)

Codemetrics count OK

Yes

Comments:

Static Path: 2

for all functions in the component per Design

Cyclomatic Complexity: 2

and Coding Standards rule [N47]

General Notes / Comments:

Review Board:

Change Owner:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

05/18/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Akilan Rathakrishnan

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Rationale/justification for items marked "No" approved by:

Sheet 6: help

Summary sheet:

Intended Use: Identify which component is being reviewed. This should match the component short name from the DataDict.m fileand the middle part of the Synergy project name, e.g. Assi for the SF001A_Assi_Impl Synergy project

Intended Use: Identify the implementation baseline name intended to be used for the changed component when changes are approved E.g. SF001A_Assi_Impl_1.2.0

Intended Use: Identify the developer who made the change(s) being reviewed

Intended Use: Identify the Implementation Work CR whose work is being reviewed (may be more than one)

Intended Use: Intended to identify at a high level to the reviewers which areas of the component have been changed.

Source code:

This item includes looking at all layers of Simulink model for possible color coding not reflected at a higher level, and includes looking at any intermediate SWC Design versions between the version being implemented and the version that was included as a subproject in the previous implementation.

Intended Use: Synergy version number of the file being reviewed. (Version number that Synergy displays on the checked out or unmodified
file in the working project)

Intended Use: Synergy version number of the file being reviewed. (Version number that Synergy displays on the checked out or unmodified file in the working project)

Intended Use: For SWC Designs, list the Synergy baseline number (just the number part of the Synergy baseline name) of the SWC Design baseline being implemented. E.g., for SF001A_Assi_Design_1.3.1, this field would say "1.3.1"

Intended Use: Indicate that the the versioning was confirmed by the peer reviewer(s).

Intended Use: To confirm no compiler errors or warnings exist for the code under review (warnings from contract header files may be ignored).

Intended Use: list version/revision of latest released Software Design and Coding Standards document.

Davinci Files

Intended Use: Identify if previous version was compared and only the expected change(s) was present. This is for text files only, not binary or GUIs

Polyspace

eg. 2013b

Integration manual

Intended Use: Identify which file is being reviewed

Intended Use: Identify which version of the integration manual has been reviewed.

Synergy

Refer to EA4 Common Naming Conventions document, section “Synergy Baseline Names for core components”

The following subprojects should be included for all component implementations:
• AR200A_ArSuprt_Impl
• AR201A_ArCplrSuprt_Impl
• TL101A_CptRteGen
• TL103A_CplrSuprt
• TL109A_SwcSuprt
• Corresponding _Design project used for the implementation

The following subprojects should be included as needed by each component:
• AR10xx_Nxtr*_Impl library components as needed by each component
• AR202x_MicroCtrlrSuprt_Impl as needed (for register header files for components making direct register access)[add notes about when to add a stub header file]
• Xx999x_xxxxGlbPrm_Impl as needed by each component
• TL105A_Artt for components with generated content

The following should NOT be included as subprojects:
• TL107x_DavinciSuprt (aka StdDef)
• TL100A_QACSuprt (QAC subproject was previously included but should be removed going forward)
• Any other component (not mentioned anywhere above) whose .h file is needed. For these components, a “stub” .h file should be created, containing only the multiple include protection and the definitions and function prototypes actually needed by the component with the #include, and placed in the “including” component’s local\include folder.

misc in Summary sheet

(integrator, designer, unit test coordinator, etc.)

For a new component, use number of lines in all source files reviewed, including files in the src and include folders and any generated cfg.h and cfg.c files. For a changed component, try to add up how many lines, including comments and blank lines, were in the changed areas that were reviewed. Not just the actual changed lines, but the number of lines in the blocks of code you had to look at to review the change.

add up the number of ports, number of PIM variables, number if IRVs, number of runnables, number of NVM blocks in the component (all of them for review of a new component, the new and modified ones for review of a change)

add the number of pages in the MDD and integration manual for a new component; for a modified component, count the number of pages that contained a change.

Reviewer

Required attendance for this type of change

Review spreadsheet tab(s)

Component group peer

All

Component owner and/or SWC Design author

*Initial creation of any new component
*Simulink model changes (any change to the model other than just updating the change log)

Source

Integrator and/or SW lead of first program planning to use the component

*Initial creation of any new component
*new or changed NVM blocks, NVM datatypes, or NVM usage (added or removed or changed NVM API calls in any runnable)
*Major rev (X changed in the X.Y.X design baseline number; means there was a component interface change)
*new or changed config params
*all MM component changes

Davinci files, Integration manual, source for NVM changes and for all MM component changes.

Unit test coordinator

Fixes for coverage issues

Source

SQA

None

For each reviewer category listed on each tab, there should either be
• the name of the reviewer who attended
or
• a comment indicating
o why that reviewer was not required for this change
or
o who approved holding the review without that required reviewer (approval must
be from the software manager or a software supervisor)

Sheet 7: Version History



File Version History
Version	Description	Author(s)	Revision Date	Approved By	Approved Date	Status
						Draft/ Released










Template Version History
Version	Description	Author(s)	Revision Date	Approved By	Approved Date	Status
1.0	Initial Version	SW Engineering team	24-May-15	NA	NA	Released
1.01	Changed name to be EA4 specific	SW Engineering team	25-Jun-15	NA	NA	Released
1.02	Modified Summary Sheet General Guidelines, Clarified wording on first item in Synergy project sheet.	SW Engineering team	30-Jul-15	NA	NA	Released
1.02	Made corrections and clarifications to Source Code check list.	SW Engineering team	30-Jul-15	NA	NA	Released
1.02	updated Davinci, MDD, and Polyspace/QAC tabs	SW Engineering team	30-Jul-15	NA	NA	Released
1.03	Aligned to portal version guidelines	Umesh Sambhari	21-Nov-17	NA	NA	Released
2.00	Summary sheet template: Changed title to indicate Implementation Peer Review Corrected and/or clarified mouse hover comments, added instructions, renamed some fields. Changed the default setting to "No" on the items reviewed	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17	Lonnie Newton, Steven Horwath, Kevin Smith, Lucas Wendling, Vinod Shankar	NA	Released
	Source code template: Removed hyperlink for naming conventions, corrected name of naming conventions document, added version field for naming conventions document. Changed item about requirements tags to reflect that they should be removed Added clarification that all combinations of conditionally compiled code must be checked Item about accurately implementing SWC Design is modified and a new item added, both to clarify where to look when determining needed changes. Added point for version of common naming conventions Reworded multiple items for clarity	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17
	Synergy project template: added items for file/folder structure added point on .gpj file in tools folder	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17
	Davinci files template: Clarified the StdDef item Added new item for OBSOLETE Clarified item on datadict.m comparison Removed the references to .m file helper tool Updated to reflect that all component should now use only implementation data types Added points on PIMs and NVMs	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17
	All template tabs: Added/clarified/removed mouse hover comments. Updated Review Board section Removed the gridlines from all tabs Updated titles to say "Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review" Changed all occurences of "FDD" to "SWC Design"	SW Engineering team	29-Nov-17
2.01	Added a help tab and appropriate links Added field on Summary sheet to report hours spent and content reviewed Changed wording in an item in Polyspace tab and Source code tab	SW Engineering team	21-Feb-18	Lonnie Newton, Steven Horwath, Kevin Smith, Lucas Wendling, Vinod Shankar	21-Feb-18	Released