BmwBacSuprt_Review

Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
help
Version History

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet

Rev 2.01

21-Feb-18

Nexteer EA4 SWC Implementation Peer Review Summary Sheet

Component Short Name:

BmwBacSuprt

Revision / Baseline:

Suprt_Bmw_Bac_03.11.00_0

Change Owner:

Kevin Smith

Work CR ID:

EA4#21735

Modified File Types:

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).

N/A

MDD

N/A

Source Code

N/A

PolySpace

N/A

Integration Manual

N/A

Davinci Files

All required reviewers participated

Comments:

This tool is provided by BMW and is loaded into the project to avoid having to install the application on PCs

Time spent ( to the nearest half hour)

review preparation

review meeting

review follow-up

Change owner:

0.5

Component developer reviewers:

Other reviewers:

Total hours

0.5

Content reviewed

Lines of code:

Elements of .arxml content:

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:

No additioanl subprojects were needed

Project contains the correct version of subprojects

N/A

Comments:

No additional subprojects required

Design subproject is correct version

N/A

Comments:

3rd party component

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

N/A

Comments:

No source files

File/folder structure is correct per documentation in

N/A

Comments:

No source files

TL109A_SwcSuprt

General Notes / Comments:

Python is a 3rd party component. Files were taken exactly as received.

Review Board:

Change Owner:

Kevin Smith

Review Date :

03/16/18

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Shameel

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

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

Sheet 3: 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 4: 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

Last modified October 12, 2025: Initial commit (af72ad2)