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 - FordMsg47ABusHiSpd_PeerReviewChecklist


Overview

Summary Sheet
Davinci Files
Source Code
Source Code (NonRte)
PolySpace


Sheet 1: Summary Sheet
























Rev 2.0029-Nov-17

Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Summary Sheet


























Component Short Name:


Windows User: 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
MM092A_FordMsg47ABusHiSpd_Impl
Revision / Baseline:

Windows User: 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
MM092A_FordMsg47ABusHiSpd_Impl_1.1.0

























Change Owner:
Windows User: Intended Use: Identify the developer who made the change(s) being reviewed

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

EA4#23318





























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:



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.
























































































































































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:




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).












































YesMDD


YesSource Code


YesPolySpace









































YesIntegration Manual


YesDavinci Files








































































Comments:

Baselined with just the port interface changes without formal review - Approved by Steven Horwath









































































































































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. Before the peer review, the change owner shall:
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: Davinci Files






















Rev 2.0029-Nov-17
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











Ford_MM_5.arxml is used along with StdDef

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











Ports from Ford_MM_5.arxml are exceptions

























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







kzshz2: 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 Rationale: This is helpful in identifying unapproved (intended or mistaken) changes.

N/A
Comments:




versions (If available) and changes match changes











Initial version

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









Yes
Comments:




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:























Some warnings are arriving due to the use of ford specific data types from the provided arxml Ford_MM_5.arxml . Not an issue for RTE gen of course.

























Naming conventions followed. All names should









Yes
Comments:










match DataDict.m






































Sender/Receiver port properties match DataDict.m file









Yes
Comments:










(name, data type, direction)






































Calibration port properties match DataDict.m file









Yes
Comments:










(name, data type)






































Sender/Receiver port initialization values match









Yes
Comments:










DataDict.m file and have been converted to counts














for fixed point types















































Calibration port initialization values match









Yes
Comments:










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)"










Yes
Comments:










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






































Runnable calling frequencies match DataDict.m file









Yes
Comments:


















































Runnable port access matches the DataDict.m file










Yes
Comments:


















































DataDict.m display variables: created as









N/A
Comments:










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






































Per Instance Memory names and data types









Yes
Comments:










match DataDict.m file






































NVM blocks match DataDict.m file









N/A
Comments:










(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:

Thenmozhi Mayakrishnan

Review Date :

04/29/18
Component Type :


Application




























Lead Peer Reviewer:


Krishna Anne

Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes




























































Integrator and or
SW lead:



Comments:

























































Other Reviewer(s):




































































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














































Sheet 3: Source Code






















Rev 2.0029-Nov-17
Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

























Source File Name:


FordMsg47ABusHiSpd.c

Source File Revision:


Windows User: 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) 1
Header File Name:


NA

Header File Revision:


Windows User: 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) NA

























MDD Name:


TBD
Revision:
Windows User: 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)

























SWC Design Name:


NA yet
Revision:
Windows User: Intended Use: For FDDs, list the Synergy baseline number (just the number part of the Synergy baseline name) of the FDD baseline being implemented. E.g., for SF001A_Assi_Design_1.3.1, this field would say "1.3.1"


























Quality Check Items:



































Rationale is required for all answers of No

































EA4 Common Naming Convention followed:









Yes
Version:1.0
























EA4 Software Naming Convention followed:









Yes
Version:1.1

























for variable names







Yes
Comments:

















































for constant names







Yes
Comments:

















































for function names







N/A
Comments:

















































for other names (component, memory







N/A
Comments:










mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)




































Verified no possibility of uninitialized variables being








N/A
Comments:









written to component outputs or IRVs





































Any requirements traceability tags have been removed








N/A
Comments:









from at least the changed areas of code











initial version
























All variables are declared at the function level.








Yes
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:



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













Work CR number














































Code accurately implements SWC Design (Document or Model)








Yes
Comments:



in all areas where code was changed and/or Simulink













model was color-coded as changed and/or mentioned






















in SWC Design change log. (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.)














































Code comparison against previous version matches








N/A
Comments:



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











Initial Version
parent CRs and parent anomalies, and the SWC






















Design change log.














































Verified no Compiler Errors or Warnings





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.


Yes
Comments:









(and verified for all possible combinations













of any conditionally compiled code)














































Component.h is included








N/A
Comments:
















































All other includes are actually needed. (System includes








N/A
Comments:









only allowed in Nexteer library components)





































Software Design and Coding Standards followed:











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







N/A
Comments:










is per standard





































All access of motor control loop data uses macros







N/A
Comments:










generated by the motor control manager





































All loops have termination conditions that ensure







N/A
Comments:










finite loop iterations: [N63]





































All divides protect against divide by zero







N/A
Comments:










if needed: [N65]





































All integer division and modulus operations







N/A
Comments:










handle negative numbers correctly: [N76]





































All typecasting and fixed point arithmetic,







Yes
Comments:










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:










float value is non-negative: [N67]





































All conversions between signed and unsigned







N/A
Comments:










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





































All pointer dereferencing protects against







N/A
Comments:










null pointer if needed: [N70]





































Component outputs are limited to the legal range







N/A
Comments:










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





































All code is mapped with SWC Design (all SWC







Yes
Comments:










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









N/A
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:

Thenmozhi Mayakrishnan


Review Date :

04/29/18
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Krishna Anne


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes










































































































SWC owner and/or
SWC Design author:









Comments:




















































Integrator and or
SW lead:









Comments:













































































Unit test co-ordinator:


Chandra N







Comments:
























































Other Reviewer(s):









































































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





































































Sheet 4: Source Code (NonRte)






















Rev 2.0029-Nov-17
Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

























Source File Name:


FordMsg47ABusHiSpdNonRte.c

Source File Revision:


Windows User: 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) 1
Header File Name:


NA

Header File Revision:


Windows User: 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) NA

























MDD Name:


TBD
Revision:
Windows User: 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)

























SWC Design Name:


NA yet
Revision:
Windows User: Intended Use: For FDDs, list the Synergy baseline number (just the number part of the Synergy baseline name) of the FDD baseline being implemented. E.g., for SF001A_Assi_Design_1.3.1, this field would say "1.3.1"


























Quality Check Items:



































Rationale is required for all answers of No

































EA4 Common Naming Convention followed:









Yes
Version:1.0
























EA4 Software Naming Convention followed:









Yes
Version:1.1

























for variable names







N/A
Comments:

















































for constant names







N/A
Comments:

















































for function names







N/A
Comments:

















































for other names (component, memory







N/A
Comments:










mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)




































Verified no possibility of uninitialized variables being








N/A
Comments:









written to component outputs or IRVs





































Any requirements traceability tags have been removed








N/A
Comments:









from at least the changed areas of code











initial version
























All variables are declared at the function 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:



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













Work CR number














































Code accurately implements SWC Design (Document or Model)








Yes
Comments:



in all areas where code was changed and/or Simulink













model was color-coded as changed and/or mentioned






















in SWC Design change log. (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.)














































Code comparison against previous version matches








N/A
Comments:



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











Initial Version
parent CRs and parent anomalies, and the SWC






















Design change log.














































Verified no Compiler Errors or Warnings





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.


Yes
Comments:









(and verified for all possible combinations













of any conditionally compiled code)














































Component.h is included








N/A
Comments:
















































All other includes are actually needed. (System includes








N/A
Comments:









only allowed in Nexteer library components)





































Software Design and Coding Standards followed:











Windows User: Intended Use: list version/revision of latest released Software Design and Coding Standards document. Version:2.1

























Code comments are clear, correct, and adequate







N/A
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







N/A
Comments:










"magic numbers": [N12]





































Memory mapping for non-RTE code







Yes
Comments:










is per standard





































All access of motor control loop data uses macros







N/A
Comments:










generated by the motor control manager





































All loops have termination conditions that ensure







N/A
Comments:










finite loop iterations: [N63]





































All divides protect against divide by zero







N/A
Comments:










if needed: [N65]





































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]














































All float-to-unsigned conversions ensure the.







N/A
Comments:










float value is non-negative: [N67]





































All conversions between signed and unsigned







N/A
Comments:










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





































All pointer dereferencing protects against







N/A
Comments:










null pointer if needed: [N70]





































Component outputs are limited to the legal range







N/A
Comments:










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





































All code is mapped with SWC Design (all SWC







Yes
Comments:










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









N/A
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:

Thenmozhi Mayakrishnan


Review Date :

04/29/18
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Krishna Anne


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes










































































































SWC owner and/or
SWC Design author:









Comments:




















































Integrator and or
SW lead:









Comments:













































































Unit test co-ordinator:


Chandra N







Comments:
























































Other Reviewer(s):









































































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





































































Sheet 5: PolySpace






















Rev 2.0029-Nov-17
Nexteer SWC Implementation Peer Review Meeting Log (PolySpace Review)




























Source File Name:





FordMsg41ABusHiSpd.c










Source File Revision:


1

Source File Name:





FordMsg41ABusHiSpdNonRte.c










Source File Revision:


1

Source File Name:

















Source File Revision:
































EA4 Static Analysis Compliance Guideline version:









01.03.00














Poly Space version:

Windows User: eg. 2013b

2013b





TL109A sub project version:

NA



































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










N/A
Comments:




comments still appropriate













Initial version




























Do all MISRA deviation comments use approved










Yes
Comments:




deviation tags











































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












N/A
Comments:




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)




















































Cyclomatic complexity and Static path count OK










Yes
Comments:




for all functions in the component per Design
















and Coding Standards rule [N47]










































































































General Notes / Comments:































































Review Board:




























Change Owner:

Thenmozhi M




Review Date :

04/29/18


































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Krishna Anne




Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes

































Other Reviewer(s):


















































































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