SyncCrc Review


Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Source Code
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
SyncCrc
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
CM800A_SyncCrc_Impl_01.04.00

























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

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

EA4#19751





























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).












































N/AMDD


YesSource Code


YesPolySpace









































N/AIntegration Manual


N/ADavinci Files








































































Comments:

Changes were made to the configuration header text template.






















































































































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








Yes
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








Yes
Comments:













































File/folder structure is correct per documentation in









Yes
Comments:




TL109A_SwcSuprt







































General Notes / Comments:
























































Review Board:


























Change Owner:

Kevin Smith


Review Date :

01/30/18
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Avinash James


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes































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:


N/A

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) N/A
Header File Name:


CDD_SyncCrc_Cfg_private.h.tt

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) 5

























MDD Name:


CM800A_SyncCrc_MDD
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) 4

























SWC Design Name:


CM800A_SyncCrc_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" 1.2.0


























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







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








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.








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








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








Yes
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:

























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







Yes
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







Yes
Comments:










is per standard





































All access of motor control loop data uses macros







Yes
Comments:










generated by the motor control manager





































All loops have termination conditions that ensure







Yes
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:

Pointers are hard coded by design,







null pointer if needed: [N70]










and is read from only. No reason to protect.

























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:

Kevin Smith


Review Date :

01/30/18
































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Avinash James


Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes










































































































SWC owner and/or
SWC Design author:
Kevin Smith







Comments:






Kevin Smith












































Integrator and or
SW lead:
Kevin Smith







Comments:













































































Unit test co-ordinator:











Comments:
























































Other Reviewer(s):









































































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





































































Sheet 4: PolySpace






















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




























Source File Name:


CDD_SyncCrc.c













Source File Revision:


5

Source File Name:


CDD_SnycCrcNonRte.c













Source File Revision:


3

Source File Name:

















Source File Revision:
































EA4 Static Analysis Compliance Guideline version:







1.04
















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










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:




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:

























Code Prover is showing 4 instances of dead code. This is because the function is a client server port and requires a direct function call to reserver a hardware

unit in order to set it to a reserved value. The Code is looking for the PIM to contain a reserved value in order to execute.

Depending on the configuration used, for example P1H-CE, Polyspace may show dead code errors in bug finder and code prover. This is expected since

the design will not take certain paths depending on the settings used.



























Review Board:




























Change Owner:

Kevin Smith




Review Date :

01/30/18


































Lead Peer Reviewer:


Avinash James




Approved by Reviewer(s):



Yes

































Other Reviewer(s):


















































































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















































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