InertiaCmpVel_PeerReview

Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Davinci Files
Source Code
MDD
PolySpace

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet

Rev 7.1

8-Jun-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. SF014A_InertiaCmpVel_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. SF014A_InertiaCmpVel_Impl_1.11.0

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. Matthew Leser

Work CR ID:

EA4#14511

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:

Yes

MDD

Yes

Source Code

Yes

PolySpace

N/A

Integration Manual

Yes

Davinci Files

Comments:

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:

Matt Leser

Review Date :

08/18/17

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Avinash James

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Bri Spencer

Sheet 3: Davinci Files

Rev 7.1

8-Jun-15

Peer Review Meeting Log (Davinci Review)

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

DCF: Only StdDef Port types are used

Yes

Comments:

DCF: Non-program-specific components saved

N/A

Comments:

in Autosar 4.0.3 format

*Cfg.arxml.TT: Verfied Davinci Configurator imported the

N/A

Comments:

change correctly

*Cfg.h.TT: Verfied Davinci Configurator generates

N/A

Comments:

the configuration header(s) file correctly

kzshz2: Either a generic sandbox or a baselined integration project can be used to verify

All changed files have been compared against previous

Yes

Comments:

versions (If available)

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.

DCF:Automated validation check is performed

Yes

Comments:

DCF: Naming conventions followed. All names should

Yes

Comments:

match DataDict.m

DCF: Sender/Receiver port properties match DataDict.m

N/A

Comments:

file (use .m file helper tool)

kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify if all the Sender/Reciever ports are compatibale with there connecting ports. Rationale: This will help to avoid errors when this component is being integrated into a project.

DCF: Calibration port properties match DataDict.m

Yes

Comments:

file (use .m file helper tool)

kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify if all the Server/Client ports are compatibale with there connecting ports. Rationale: This will help to avoid errors when this component is being integrated into a project.

DCF: Sender/Receiver port initialization values match

N/A

Comments:

DataDict.m file

DCF: Calibration port initialization values match

Yes

Comments:

DataDict.m file

DCF: All sender/receiver port read/writes using direct

N/A

Comments:

read/writes(List justification of not)

DCF: Runnable calling frequencies match FDD

N/A

Comments:

No changes done

DataDict.m display variables: created as

N/A

Comments:

PerInstanceMemory. Matches the FDD

Compnent is correct component type

Yes

Comments:

General Notes / Comments:

Change Owner:

Matthew Leser

Review Date :

08/18/17

Component Type :

Application

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Avinash James

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Bri Spencer

Sheet 4: Source Code

Rev 7.1

8-Jun-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. InertiaCmpVel.c

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. 8

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 InertiaCmpVel_MDD

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 5

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 SF014A_InertiaCmpVel_Design_1.14.0

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

Yes

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.)

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)

N/A

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

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

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

N/A

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,

Yes

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

Yes

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

Yes

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:

Matt Leser

Review Date :

08/18/17

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Avinash James

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Bri Spencer

Sheet 5: MDD

Rev 7.1

8-Jun-15

Peer Review Meeting Log (MDD Review)

Module Name:

kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which file is has been reviewed Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this sheet is not attached to the wrong design review form. InertiaCmpVel_MDD

Module

kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify how many source files are being reviewed and trace it to the appropriate MDD. Rationale: Required for traceability between source code and MDD

MDD Revision:

kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which version of the MDD has been reviewed. Rationale: Required for traceability between the MDD and review. Auditors will likely require this. 5

Source File Revision:

kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which version of the source file was this MDD written for. Rationale: Needed for traceability between source code and MDD 8

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

Synergy version matches header

Yes

Comments:

Change log contains detailed description of changes

Yes

Comments:

Changes Highlighted (for Unit Tester)

Yes

Comments:

High-level Diagrams have been reviewed

Yes

Comments:

All Design Exceptions and Limitations are listed

N/A

Comments:

Design rationale given for all module input and output

N/A

Comments:

data not communicated through RTE ports, per

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

All other Design rationale understood and captured

N/A

Comments:

appropriately

All Unit Test Considerations have beeen described

N/A

Comments:

General Notes / Comments:

Change Owner:

Matt Leser

Review Date :

08/18/17

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Avinash James

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Bri Spencer

Sheet 6: PolySpace

Rev 7.1

8-Jun-15

Peer Review Meeting Log (QAC/PolySpace Review)

Module Name:

kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which .c file is being analyzed Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this sheet is not attached to the wrong design review form. InertiaCmpVel

Source File Revision:

Module

Compliance Guidelines Version:

01.03.00

kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify specific changes in results (new violation present, previous violation corrected, etc.). Changes to the version of the tool or the way the results were gathered should be described here also. This should be filled out prior to the review by the change owner. Rationale: Gives reviewers an what needs to be focused on. Forces the change owner to compare with previous results to catch any differences that may otherwise go unoticed Brief Summary of Changes (In Results or Tool):

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

Contract Folder's header files are appropriate

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 MISRA Compliance Guidelines

Yes

Comments:

Are previously added suppression comments still

Creager, Kathleen: use Browse Function Metrics, STCYC and STPTH

Yes

Comments:

appropriate

Cyclomatic complexity and Static path count ok per

Creager, Kathleen: use Browse Function Metrics, STCYC and STPTH

Yes

Comments:

Design and Coding Standards rule [N47]

General Notes / Comments:

Change Owner:

Matt Leser

Review Date :

08/18/17

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Avinash James

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Bri Spencer

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