DiagcMgr_PeerReviewChecklist


Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
DiagcMgrNonRte
MDD
PolySpace
Version History


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
DiagcMgr
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
ES101A_DiagcMgr_Impl_5.3.0

























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

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

EA4#18204





























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









































N/AIntegration Manual


N/ADavinci Files








































































Comments:

Anomaly Fixes for EA4#16551






Converted manually to new folder structure : DO NOT REGENERATE POLYSPACE OR INTEGRATION FILES






OR GENERATION SCRIPT USING SWCSUPRT.BAT



















































































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: Synergy Project






















Rev 2.0029-Nov-17

























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








N/A
Comments:










































Project contains the correct version of subprojects








Yes
Comments:










































Design subproject is correct version








Yes
Comments:












































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








No
Comments:

















See comment 1


























File/folder structure is correct per documentation in









Yes
Comments:




TL109A_SwcSuprt







































General Notes / Comments:























1. TL109A does not create individual gpjs for the diagcmgr and proxy files. So these project files are manually created and must be updated as needed.































Review Board:


























Change Owner:

Shruthi Raghavan


Review Date :

12/14/17
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Avinash James


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































Other Reviewer(s):


Kathleen Creager
Lucas Wendling


































Samanth Kumaraswamy
Gustavo Nunes






























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









Lucas Wendling

































Sheet 3: DiagcMgrNonRte






















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

























Source File Name:


DiagcMgrNonRTE.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) 8
Header File Name:


DiagcMgr.h

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) 9

























MDD Name:


DiagcMgr_MDD.doc
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) 11

























SWC Design Name:


ES101A_DiagcMgr_Design
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" 5.3.0


























Quality Check Items:



































Rationale is required for all answers of No

































EA4 Common Naming Convention followed:











Version: 1.01
























EA4 Software Naming Convention followed:











Version: 1.02

























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





































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








Yes
Comments:



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





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








Yes
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: 2.01

























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










put in comment for update nvm : done 12/14/2017

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








Yes
Comments: List Anomaly or CR numbers









for any SWC Design corrections needed











EA4#18554 (See comment 1)


















































General Notes / Comments:























1. A continuous improvement ICR (EA4#18554) was created for optimizing the number of times the FltAry NvM is written to
























































Review Board:


























Change Owner:

Shruthi Raghavan


Review Date :

12/14/17
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Avinash James


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes










































































































SWC owner and/or
SWC Design author:









Comments:






Samanth Kumaraswamy












































Integrator and or
SW lead:









Comments:







Gustavo Nunes




































































Unit test co-ordinator:


N/A







Comments:

Not a required reviewer for



















this change




























Other Reviewer(s):


Lucas Wendling























Kathleen Creager












































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





































































Sheet 4: MDD






















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



























MDD Name:

DiagcMgr_MDD.docx
MDD Revision:

11




























Source File Name:


DiagcMgr.c




Source File Revision:


18

Source File Name:


DiagcMgr_private.c




Source File Revision:


4

Source File Name:


DiagMgrNonRte.c




Source File Revision:


8

Source File Name:


DiagcMgrProxyApplX.c (X=0,1,2,4,5,7,8,9)




Source File Revision:


8

Source File Name:


DiagcMgrProxyAppl3.c




Source File Revision:


9

Source File Name:


DiagcMgrProxyAppl6.c




Source File Revision:


11

Source File Name:


DiagcMgrProxyAppl10.c




Source File Revision:


11

Source File Name:


DiagcMgrStub.c




Source File Revision:


4

Source File Name:


DiagcMgr_Cfg.c.tt




Source File Revision:


8



























Quality Check Items:





































Rationale is required for all answers of No











Synergy version matches document








Yes
Comments:
















































Change log contains detailed description of changes








Yes
Comments:
















































Changes Highlighted (for Unit Tester)








Yes
Comments:
















































Diagrams have been included per MDD Guideline








N/A
Comments:











and reviewed









































All Design Exceptions and Limitations are listed








N/A
Comments:
























removed a fixed limitation




























Design rationale given for all global








N/A
Comments:











data not communicated through RTE ports, per















Design and Coding Standards rules [N9] and [N10].


















































All implementation details that differ from the SWC








N/A
Comments:











Design are noted and explained in Design Rationale









































All Unit Test Considerations have been described








N/A
Comments:
























removed consideration that was put in for design issue




























General Notes / Comments:
























DIAGCMGR_DEMCHK must be tested with ON and OFF? Leave them turned on & justify coverage issues 9/14/2017







































Review Board:



























Change Owner:

Shruthi Raghavan


Review Date :

12/14/17


































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Avinash James


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes

































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:


DiagcMgr.c




Source File Revision:


18

Source File Name:


DiagcMgr_private.c




Source File Revision:


4

Source File Name:


DiagMgrNonRte.c




Source File Revision:


8

Source File Name:


DiagcMgrProxyApplX.c (X=0,1,2,4,5,7,8,9)




Source File Revision:


8

Source File Name:


DiagcMgrProxyAppl3.c




Source File Revision:


9

Source File Name:


DiagcMgrProxyAppl6.c




Source File Revision:


11

Source File Name:


DiagcMgrProxyAppl10.c




Source File Revision:


11

Source File Name:


DiagcMgrStub.c




Source File Revision:


4

Source File Name:


DiagcMgr_Cfg.c.tt




Source File Revision:


8




























EA4 Static Analysis Compliance Guideline version:







01.03.00







Poly Space version:

Windows User: eg. 2013b

2013b





TL109A sub project version:

2.2.0



































Quality Check Items:








































Rationale is required for all answers of No





































tools/local folders' header files are appropriate and










N/A
Comments:










function prototypes match the latest component version











































100% Compliance to the EA4 Static Analysis

Yes
Comments:




Compliance Guideline













reviewed changes




























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)












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










No
Comments:




for all functions in the component per Design













Cyclomatic complexity = 23. See reasoning below.

and Coding Standards rule [N47]

































































































General Notes / Comments:

























13.7 warning in Polyspace exists in DiagcMgr.c file because of the config constants - TOTNROFDTC_CNT_U08, DEMTOTNROFDTC_CNT_U08 - and trying to compare two constants but this values change based on DTC configuration



Polyspace complains about unreachable code because of above config constants - Analysed and is OK.

Cyclomatic Complecity maximum is 23 for the server runnable ReadNtcInfoAndDebCntr_Oper in DiagcMgr.c. There is no logical or efficient way to breakdown the conditions into meaningful subfunctions.



Orange check for indexing DTCENAMASK array : A wrong calibration of DiagcMgrFltResp table is the only reason that an out of bounds array access can happen but that will be caught by DET checks. See MDD for additional rationale. 10/25/2017



NtcInfoDebCntrArg update in the Prefaild case in SetNtcStsCore cannot overflow because of the preconditions to enter DebCntr<MAXDEBCNTRVAL case : So the overflow orange check reported is verified to be a non issue.



if((NtcNr_Arg < NTCNR_0X001) || (NtcNr_Arg > NTCNR_0X1FF)) condition is used in code to ensure ntc numbers to be in range and to set a dtc otherwise. This check is done in 5 server runnables in each proxy component. However, the DRS for NtcNumber being in the 1-511 range makes else case appear as unreachable code to Polyspace. This is okay, because the DET check is there for "abnormal" conditions where the NTC number at the input of these runnables might be outside the allowed range. 10/25/2017.
Similar checks are also done in SetNtcStsCore_Oper() which causes 2 deadcode warnings that can be justified by the same reason given above. 10/25/2017










UpdSnpshtData unreachable code seems to be due to unknown range of the SnpshtDataAry_M global variable used as NVM Shadow Ram.

When NtcInfo_Cnt_T_rec is returned from a function via a pointer, Polyspace is unable to recognize that it was initialized inside with valid values. In case no valid value is returned from the local function, code uses a flag from the function to initialize the used members of the structure to default values. so checks for Non-initialized local variable is ok. 10/25/2017


































Review Board:




























Change Owner:

Shruthi Raghavan




Review Date :

12/14/17


































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Avinash James




Approved by Reviewer(s):






































Other Reviewer(s):


Lucas Wendling
Kathleen Creager






































Samanth Kumaraswamy
Gustavo Nunes


































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









Lucas Wendling





































Sheet 6: Version History















File Version History





VersionDescriptionAuthor(s)Revision DateApproved ByApproved DateStatus






Draft/ Released






































































Template Version History





VersionDescriptionAuthor(s)Revision DateApproved ByApproved DateStatus
1.0Initial VersionSW Engineering team24-May-15NANAReleased
1.01Changed name to be EA4 specificSW Engineering team25-Jun-15NANAReleased
1.02Modified Summary Sheet General Guidelines, Clarified wording on first item in Synergy project sheet.SW Engineering team30-Jul-15NANAReleased
1.02Made corrections and clarifications to Source Code check list.SW Engineering team30-Jul-15NANAReleased
1.02updated Davinci, MDD, and Polyspace/QAC tabsSW Engineering team30-Jul-15NANAReleased
1.03Aligned to portal version guidelinesUmesh Sambhari21-Nov-17NANAReleased
2.00Summary 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 team29-Nov-17Lonnie Newton, Steven Horwath, Kevin Smith, Lucas Wendling, Vinod ShankarNAReleased
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 team29-Nov-17
Synergy project template:
added items for file/folder structure
added point on .gpj file in tools folder
SW Engineering team29-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 team29-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 team29-Nov-17








Last modified October 12, 2025: Initial commit (ddf2e20)