ArchGlbPrm Review

Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Source Code
PolySpace

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet

Rev 7.0

20-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

Yes

Source Code

Yes

PolySpace

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 7.0

20-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:

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:

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 1.2

8-Jun-15

Peer Review Meeting Log (QAC/PolySpace Review)

Source File Name:

ArchGlbPrm.h

Source File Revision:

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 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

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:

Change Owner:

Avinash James

Review Date :

03/22/17

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Kathleen Creager

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

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