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. MM001A_GmMsg0C5BusHiSpd_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. 0.4.0

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. Jared Julien

Work CR ID:

EA4#

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:

N/A

MDD

Yes

Source Code

No

PolySpace

No

Integration Manual

No

Davinci Files

Comments:

Review covered changes for this revision only

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 FDD Owner and Integrator 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.

Sheet 2: Synergy Project

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:

No change from previous

Design subproject is correct version

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

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:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

09/16/16

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Willy Haywood

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Sheet 3: Source Code

Rev 1.2

8-Jun-15

Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

Source File Name:

GmMsg0C5BusHiSpd.c

Source File Revision:

4

Header File Name:

N/A

Header 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. N/A

MDD Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

FDD/SCIR/DSR/FDR/CM Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

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

Yes

Comments:

for function names

Yes

Comments:

for other names (component, memory

Yes

Comments:

mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)

All paths assign a value to outputs, ensuring

Yes

Comments:

all outputs are initialized prior to being written

Requirements Tracability tags in code match the requirements tracability in the FDD

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time and so no tracability

requirements tracability in the FDD

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:

and Work CR number

Code accurately implements FDD (Document or Model)

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

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; QAC can find compiler errors but not warnings.

Yes

Comments:

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:

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

N/A

Comments:

No local functions

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 execution-order-dependent code can be

Yes

Comments:

recognized by the compiler: [N80]

All loops have termination conditions that ensure

N/A

Comments:

No loops

finite loop iterations: [N63]

All divides protect against divide by zero

Yes

Comments:

if needed: [N65]

All integer division and modulus operations

Yes

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-unsiged conversions ensure the.

N/A

Comments:

float value is non-negative: [N67]

All conversions between signed and unsigned

Yes

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

Yes

Comments:

M-file is not official, but outputs are limited

defined in the FDD DataDict.m file : [N53]

All code is mapped with FDD (all FDD

N/A

Comments:

No FDD at this time

subfunctions and/or model blocks identified

with code comments; all code corresponds to

some FDD subfunction and/or model block): [N40]

Review did not identify violations of other

Yes

Comments:

coding standard rules

Anomaly or Design Work CR created

N/A

Comments:

for any FDD corrections needed

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:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

09/16/16

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Willy Haywood

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

2 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

3 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

4 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

5 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

6 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

7 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

8 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

Component Documentation

GmMsg184BusHiSpd_PeerReviewChecklist.html

8.1 - GmMsg184BusHiSpd_PeerReviewChecklist

Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Source Code

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet

Rev 1.2

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. MM502A_GmMsg184BusHiSpd_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. 0.4.0

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. Jared Julien

Work CR ID:

EA4#6951

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:

N/A

MDD

Yes

Source Code

No

PolySpace

No

Integration Manual

No

Davinci Files

Comments:

Review covered changes for this revision only

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 FDD Owner and Integrator 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.

Sheet 2: Synergy Project

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:

No change from previous

Design subproject is correct version

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

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:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

08/31/16

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Willy Haywood

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Sheet 3: Source Code

Rev 1.2

8-Jun-15

Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

Source File Name:

GmMsg184BusHiSpd.c

Source File Revision:

4

Header File Name:

N/A

Header 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. N/A

MDD Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

FDD/SCIR/DSR/FDR/CM Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

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

Yes

Comments:

for function names

Yes

Comments:

for other names (component, memory

Yes

Comments:

mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)

All paths assign a value to outputs, ensuring

Yes

Comments:

all outputs are initialized prior to being written

Requirements Tracability tags in code match the requirements tracability in the FDD

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time and so no tracability

requirements tracability in the FDD

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:

and Work CR number

Code accurately implements FDD (Document or Model)

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

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; QAC can find compiler errors but not warnings.

Yes

Comments:

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:

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

N/A

Comments:

No local functions

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 execution-order-dependent code can be

Yes

Comments:

recognized by the compiler: [N80]

All loops have termination conditions that ensure

N/A

Comments:

No loops

finite loop iterations: [N63]

All divides protect against divide by zero

Yes

Comments:

if needed: [N65]

All integer division and modulus operations

Yes

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-unsiged conversions ensure the.

N/A

Comments:

float value is non-negative: [N67]

All conversions between signed and unsigned

Yes

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

Yes

Comments:

M-file is not official, but outputs are limited

defined in the FDD DataDict.m file : [N53]

All code is mapped with FDD (all FDD

N/A

Comments:

No FDD at this time

subfunctions and/or model blocks identified

with code comments; all code corresponds to

some FDD subfunction and/or model block): [N40]

Review did not identify violations of other

Yes

Comments:

coding standard rules

Anomaly or Design Work CR created

N/A

Comments:

for any FDD corrections needed

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:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

08/31/16

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Willy Haywood

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

9 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

Component Documentation

GmMsg1CABusChassisExp_PeerReviewChecklist.html

9.1 - GmMsg1CABusChassisExp_PeerReviewChecklist

Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Source Code

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet

Rev 1.2

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. MM505A_GmMsg1CABusChassisExp_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. 0.3.0

Change Owner:

kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify the developer who made the change(s) Rationale: A change request may have more than one resolver, this will help identify who made what change. Change owner identification may be required by indusrty standards. Jared Julien

Work CR ID:

EA4#7286

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:

N/A

MDD

Yes

Source Code

No

PolySpace

No

Integration Manual

No

Davinci Files

Comments:

Review covered changes for this revision only

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 FDD Owner and Integrator 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.

Sheet 2: Synergy Project

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:

No change from previous

Design subproject is correct version

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

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:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

08/31/16

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Willy Haywood

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Sheet 3: Source Code

Rev 1.2

8-Jun-15

Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

Source File Name:

GmMsg1CABusChassisExp.c

Source File Revision:

3

Header File Name:

N/A

Header 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. N/A

MDD Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

FDD/SCIR/DSR/FDR/CM Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

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

Yes

Comments:

for function names

Yes

Comments:

for other names (component, memory

Yes

Comments:

mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)

All paths assign a value to outputs, ensuring

Yes

Comments:

all outputs are initialized prior to being written

Requirements Tracability tags in code match the requirements tracability in the FDD

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time and so no tracability

requirements tracability in the FDD

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:

and Work CR number

Code accurately implements FDD (Document or Model)

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

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; QAC can find compiler errors but not warnings.

Yes

Comments:

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:

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

N/A

Comments:

No local functions

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 execution-order-dependent code can be

Yes

Comments:

recognized by the compiler: [N80]

All loops have termination conditions that ensure

N/A

Comments:

No loops

finite loop iterations: [N63]

All divides protect against divide by zero

Yes

Comments:

if needed: [N65]

All integer division and modulus operations

Yes

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-unsiged conversions ensure the.

N/A

Comments:

float value is non-negative: [N67]

All conversions between signed and unsigned

Yes

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

Yes

Comments:

M-file is not official, but outputs are limited

defined in the FDD DataDict.m file : [N53]

All code is mapped with FDD (all FDD

N/A

Comments:

No FDD at this time

subfunctions and/or model blocks identified

with code comments; all code corresponds to

some FDD subfunction and/or model block): [N40]

Review did not identify violations of other

Yes

Comments:

coding standard rules

Anomaly or Design Work CR created

N/A

Comments:

for any FDD corrections needed

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:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

08/31/16

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Willy Haywood

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

10 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

Component Documentation

GmMsg1E5BusChassisExp_PeerReviewChecklist.html

10.1 - GmMsg1E5BusChassisExp_PeerReviewChecklist

Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Source Code

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet

Rev 1.2

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. MM506A_GmMsg1E5BusChassisExp_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. 0.7.0

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. Jared Julien

Work CR ID:

EA4#7287

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:

N/A

MDD

Yes

Source Code

No

PolySpace

No

Integration Manual

No

Davinci Files

Comments:

Review covered changes for this revision only

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 FDD Owner and Integrator 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.

Sheet 2: Synergy Project

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:

No change from previous

Design subproject is correct version

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

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:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

08/31/16

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Willy Haywood

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Sheet 3: Source Code

Rev 1.2

8-Jun-15

Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

Source File Name:

GmMsg1E5BusChassisExp.c

Source File Revision:

7

Header File Name:

N/A

Header 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. N/A

MDD Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

FDD/SCIR/DSR/FDR/CM Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

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

Yes

Comments:

for function names

Yes

Comments:

for other names (component, memory

Yes

Comments:

mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)

All paths assign a value to outputs, ensuring

Yes

Comments:

all outputs are initialized prior to being written

Requirements Tracability tags in code match the requirements tracability in the FDD

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time and so no tracability

requirements tracability in the FDD

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:

and Work CR number

Code accurately implements FDD (Document or Model)

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

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; QAC can find compiler errors but not warnings.

Yes

Comments:

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:

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

N/A

Comments:

No local functions

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 execution-order-dependent code can be

Yes

Comments:

recognized by the compiler: [N80]

All loops have termination conditions that ensure

N/A

Comments:

No loops

finite loop iterations: [N63]

All divides protect against divide by zero

Yes

Comments:

if needed: [N65]

All integer division and modulus operations

Yes

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-unsiged conversions ensure the.

N/A

Comments:

float value is non-negative: [N67]

All conversions between signed and unsigned

Yes

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

Yes

Comments:

M-file is not official, but outputs are limited

defined in the FDD DataDict.m file : [N53]

All code is mapped with FDD (all FDD

N/A

Comments:

No FDD at this time

subfunctions and/or model blocks identified

with code comments; all code corresponds to

some FDD subfunction and/or model block): [N40]

Review did not identify violations of other

Yes

Comments:

coding standard rules

Anomaly or Design Work CR created

N/A

Comments:

for any FDD corrections needed

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:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

08/31/16

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Willy Haywood

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

11 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

Component Documentation

GmMsg1E5BusHiSpd_PeerReviewChecklist.html

11.1 - GmMsg1E5BusHiSpd_PeerReviewChecklist

Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Source Code

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet

Rev 1.2

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. MM503A_GmMsg1E5BusHiSpd_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. 0.7.0

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. Jared Julien

Work CR ID:

EA4#7285

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:

N/A

MDD

Yes

Source Code

No

PolySpace

No

Integration Manual

No

Davinci Files

Comments:

Review covered changes for this revision only

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 FDD Owner and Integrator 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.

Sheet 2: Synergy Project

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:

No change from previous

Design subproject is correct version

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

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:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

08/31/16

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Willy Haywood

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Sheet 3: Source Code

Rev 1.2

8-Jun-15

Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

Source File Name:

GmMsg1E5BusHiSpd.c

Source File Revision:

7

Header File Name:

N/A

Header 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. N/A

MDD Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

FDD/SCIR/DSR/FDR/CM Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

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

Yes

Comments:

for function names

Yes

Comments:

for other names (component, memory

Yes

Comments:

mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)

All paths assign a value to outputs, ensuring

Yes

Comments:

all outputs are initialized prior to being written

Requirements Tracability tags in code match the requirements tracability in the FDD

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time and so no tracability

requirements tracability in the FDD

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:

and Work CR number

Code accurately implements FDD (Document or Model)

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

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; QAC can find compiler errors but not warnings.

Yes

Comments:

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:

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

N/A

Comments:

No local functions

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 execution-order-dependent code can be

Yes

Comments:

recognized by the compiler: [N80]

All loops have termination conditions that ensure

N/A

Comments:

No loops

finite loop iterations: [N63]

All divides protect against divide by zero

Yes

Comments:

if needed: [N65]

All integer division and modulus operations

Yes

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-unsiged conversions ensure the.

N/A

Comments:

float value is non-negative: [N67]

All conversions between signed and unsigned

Yes

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

Yes

Comments:

M-file is not official, but outputs are limited

defined in the FDD DataDict.m file : [N53]

All code is mapped with FDD (all FDD

N/A

Comments:

No FDD at this time

subfunctions and/or model blocks identified

with code comments; all code corresponds to

some FDD subfunction and/or model block): [N40]

Review did not identify violations of other

Yes

Comments:

coding standard rules

Anomaly or Design Work CR created

N/A

Comments:

for any FDD corrections needed

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:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

08/31/16

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Willy Haywood

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

12 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

13 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

14 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

15 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

16 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

17 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

Component Documentation

GmMsg335BusChassisExp_PeerReviewChecklist.html

17.1 - GmMsg335BusChassisExp_PeerReviewChecklist

Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Source Code

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet

Rev 1.2

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. MM507A_GmMsg335BusChassisExp_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. 0.4.0

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. Jared Julien

Work CR ID:

EA4#6952

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:

N/A

MDD

Yes

Source Code

No

PolySpace

No

Integration Manual

No

Davinci Files

Comments:

Review covered changes for this revision only

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 FDD Owner and Integrator 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.

Sheet 2: Synergy Project

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:

No change from previous

Design subproject is correct version

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

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:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

08/31/16

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Willy Haywood

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Sheet 3: Source Code

Rev 1.2

8-Jun-15

Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

Source File Name:

GmMsg335BusChassisExp.c

Source File Revision:

4

Header File Name:

N/A

Header 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. N/A

MDD Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

FDD/SCIR/DSR/FDR/CM Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

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

Yes

Comments:

for function names

Yes

Comments:

for other names (component, memory

Yes

Comments:

mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)

All paths assign a value to outputs, ensuring

Yes

Comments:

all outputs are initialized prior to being written

Requirements Tracability tags in code match the requirements tracability in the FDD

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time and so no tracability

requirements tracability in the FDD

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:

and Work CR number

Code accurately implements FDD (Document or Model)

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

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; QAC can find compiler errors but not warnings.

Yes

Comments:

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:

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

N/A

Comments:

No local functions

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 execution-order-dependent code can be

Yes

Comments:

recognized by the compiler: [N80]

All loops have termination conditions that ensure

N/A

Comments:

No loops

finite loop iterations: [N63]

All divides protect against divide by zero

Yes

Comments:

if needed: [N65]

All integer division and modulus operations

Yes

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-unsiged conversions ensure the.

N/A

Comments:

float value is non-negative: [N67]

All conversions between signed and unsigned

Yes

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

Yes

Comments:

M-file is not official, but outputs are limited

defined in the FDD DataDict.m file : [N53]

All code is mapped with FDD (all FDD

N/A

Comments:

No FDD at this time

subfunctions and/or model blocks identified

with code comments; all code corresponds to

some FDD subfunction and/or model block): [N40]

Review did not identify violations of other

Yes

Comments:

coding standard rules

Anomaly or Design Work CR created

N/A

Comments:

for any FDD corrections needed

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:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

08/31/16

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Willy Haywood

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

18 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

19 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

20 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

21 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

22 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

23 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

24 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

25 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

26 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

Component Documentation

GmMsg778BusHiSpd_PeerReviewChecklist.html

26.1 - GmMsg778BusHiSpd_PeerReviewChecklist

Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Source Code

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet

Rev 1.2

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. MM504A_GmMsg778BusHiSpd_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. 0.2.0

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. Jared Julien

Work CR ID:

EA4#7665

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:

N/A

MDD

Yes

Source Code

No

PolySpace

No

Integration Manual

No

Davinci Files

Comments:

Review covered changes for this revision only

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 FDD Owner and Integrator 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.

Sheet 2: Synergy Project

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:

No change from previous

Design subproject is correct version

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

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:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

10/07/16

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Willy Haywood

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Sheet 3: Source Code

Rev 1.2

8-Jun-15

Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

Source File Name:

GmMsg778BusHiSpd.c

Source File Revision:

2

Header File Name:

N/A

Header 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. N/A

MDD Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

FDD/SCIR/DSR/FDR/CM Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

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

Yes

Comments:

for function names

Yes

Comments:

for other names (component, memory

Yes

Comments:

mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)

All paths assign a value to outputs, ensuring

Yes

Comments:

all outputs are initialized prior to being written

Requirements Tracability tags in code match the requirements tracability in the FDD

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time and so no tracability

requirements tracability in the FDD

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:

and Work CR number

Code accurately implements FDD (Document or Model)

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

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; QAC can find compiler errors but not warnings.

Yes

Comments:

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:

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

N/A

Comments:

No local functions

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 execution-order-dependent code can be

Yes

Comments:

recognized by the compiler: [N80]

All loops have termination conditions that ensure

N/A

Comments:

No loops

finite loop iterations: [N63]

All divides protect against divide by zero

Yes

Comments:

if needed: [N65]

All integer division and modulus operations

Yes

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-unsiged conversions ensure the.

N/A

Comments:

float value is non-negative: [N67]

All conversions between signed and unsigned

Yes

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

Yes

Comments:

M-file is not official, but outputs are limited

defined in the FDD DataDict.m file : [N53]

All code is mapped with FDD (all FDD

N/A

Comments:

No FDD at this time

subfunctions and/or model blocks identified

with code comments; all code corresponds to

some FDD subfunction and/or model block): [N40]

Review did not identify violations of other

Yes

Comments:

coding standard rules

Anomaly or Design Work CR created

N/A

Comments:

for any FDD corrections needed

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:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

10/07/16

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Willy Haywood

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

27 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

Component Documentation

SerlComInpProxy_PeerReviewChecklist.html

27.1 - SerlComInpProxy_PeerReviewChecklist

Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Davinci Files
Source Code

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet

Rev 1.2

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. MM000B_SerlComInpProxy_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. MM000B_SerlComInpProxy_Impl_1.0.0

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. Gustavo M Nunes

Work CR ID:

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:

N/A

MDD

Yes

Source Code

No

PolySpace

No

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.
- New components should include FDD Owner and Integrator 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.

Sheet 2: Synergy Project

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

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

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:

Gustavo M Nunes

Review Date :

02/03/17

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Hari Mattupalli

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Sheet 3: Davinci Files

Rev 1.2

8-Jun-15

Peer Review Meeting Log (Davinci Review)

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

Only StdDef Port types are used

Yes

Comments:

For components not using application data types, do all

Yes

Comments:

port interface names end in PortIf and a sequence number

Non-program-specific components saved

Yes

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:

Initial version created

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.

Automated validation check is performed

Yes

Comments:

Naming conventions followed. All names should

N/A

Comments:

DataDict not available. Naming conventions followed

match DataDict.m

Sender/Receiver port properties match DataDict.m

N/A

Comments:

DataDict not available.

file (use .m file helper tool)

Calibration port properties match DataDict.m

N/A

Comments:

DataDict not available.

file (use .m file helper tool)

Components using application data types:

Sender/Receiver port initialization values match

N/A

Comments:

DataDict not available.

DataDict.m file

Calibration port initialization values match

N/A

Comments:

DataDict not available.

DataDict.m file

Components not using application data types:

Sender/Receiver port initialization values match

N/A

Comments:

DataDict not available.

DataDict.m file and have been converted to counts

for fixed point types

Calibration port initialization values match

N/A

Comments:

DataDict not available.

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 direct

Yes

Comments:

read/writes(List justification if not)

Runnable calling frequencies match FDD

N/A

Comments:

No FDD available.

DataDict.m display variables: created as

N/A

Comments:

DataDict not available.

PerInstanceMemory. Matches the FDD

Component is correct component type

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:

Gustavo M Nunes

Review Date :

02/03/17

Component Type :

Application

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Hari Mattupalli

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Sheet 4: Source Code

Rev 1.2

8-Jun-15

Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

Source File Name:

SerlComInProxyp.c

Source File Revision:

1

Header File Name:

N/A

Header 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. N/A

MDD Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

FDD/SCIR/DSR/FDR/CM Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

Working EA4 Software Naming Convention followed:

for variable names

N/A

Comments:

for constant names

N/A

Comments:

for function names

N/A

Comments:

for other names (component, memory

Yes

Comments:

mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)

All paths assign a value to outputs, ensuring

Yes

Comments:

all outputs are initialized prior to being written

Requirements Tracability tags in code match the requirements tracability in the FDD

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time and so no tracability

requirements tracability in the FDD

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:

and Work CR number

Code accurately implements FDD (Document or Model)

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

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; QAC can find compiler errors but not warnings.

Yes

Comments:

Warning is show if no ECU is selected. Please use DualEcuSelect.h as reference.

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:

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

N/A

Comments:

No local functions

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 execution-order-dependent code can be

Yes

Comments:

recognized by the compiler: [N80]

All loops have termination conditions that ensure

N/A

Comments:

No loops

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-unsiged 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

Yes

Comments:

M-file is not official, but outputs are limited

defined in the FDD DataDict.m file : [N53]

All code is mapped with FDD (all FDD

N/A

Comments:

No FDD at this time

subfunctions and/or model blocks identified

with code comments; all code corresponds to

some FDD subfunction and/or model block): [N40]

Review did not identify violations of other

Yes

Comments:

coding standard rules

Anomaly or Design Work CR created

N/A

Comments:

for any FDD corrections needed

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:

Gustavo M Nunes

Review Date :

02/03/17

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Hari Mattupalli

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

28 - Component Implementation

Component Implementation

Component Documentation

SerlComOutpProxy_PeerReviewChecklist.html

28.1 - SerlComOutpProxy_PeerReviewChecklist

Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Source Code
PolySpace

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet

Rev 1.2

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. MM500B_SerlComOutpProxy_Impl

Revision / Baseline:

kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify which Synergy revision of this component is being reviewed Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this form is not attaced to the the wrong change request. 1.1.0

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. Gustavo M Nunes

Work CR ID:

EA4#9769

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:

N/A

MDD

Yes

Source Code

Yes

PolySpace

No

Integration Manual

No

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.
- New components should include FDD Owner and Integrator 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.

Sheet 2: Synergy Project

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:

No change from previous

Design subproject is correct version

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

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:

Gustavo M Nunes

Review Date :

02/09/17

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Krishna

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Sheet 3: Source Code

Rev 1.2

8-Jun-15

Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review)

Source File Name:

SerlComOutpProxy.c

Source File Revision:

2

Header File Name:

N/A

Header 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. N/A

MDD Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

FDD/SCIR/DSR/FDR/CM Name:

N/A

Revision:

N/A

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

Yes

Comments:

for function names

No

Comments:

Vector callback function implemented in this file.

for other names (component, memory

Yes

Comments:

mapping handles, typedefs, etc.)

All paths assign a value to outputs, ensuring

Yes

Comments:

all outputs are initialized prior to being written

Requirements Tracability tags in code match the requirements tracability in the FDD

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time and so no tracability

requirements tracability in the FDD

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:

and Work CR number

Code accurately implements FDD (Document or Model)

N/A

Comments:

No design at this time

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; QAC can find compiler errors but not warnings.

Yes

Comments:

Component.h is included

N/A

Comments:

All other includes are actually needed. (System includes

Yes

Comments:

only allowed in Nexteer library components)

Software Design and Coding Standards followed:

Version: 2.1

Code comments are clear, correct, and adequate

Yes

Comments:

and have been updated for the change: [N40] and

all other rules in the same section as rule [N40],

plus [N75], [N12], [N23], [N33], [N37], [N38],

[N48], [N54], [N77], [N79], [N72]

Source file (.c and .h) comment blocks are per

Yes

Comments:

standards and contain correct information: [N41], [N42]

Function comment blocks are per standards and

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

N/A

Comments:

is per standard

All execution-order-dependent code can be

Yes

Comments:

recognized by the compiler: [N80]

All loops have termination conditions that ensure

N/A

Comments:

No loops

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-unsiged 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 FDD DataDict.m file : [N53]

All code is mapped with FDD (all FDD

N/A

Comments:

No FDD at this time

subfunctions and/or model blocks identified

with code comments; all code corresponds to

some FDD subfunction and/or model block): [N40]

Review did not identify violations of other

Yes

Comments:

coding standard rules

Anomaly or Design Work CR created

N/A

Comments:

for any FDD corrections needed

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:

Gustavo M Nunes

Review Date :

02/09/17

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Krishna

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Sheet 4: PolySpace

Rev 1.2

8-Jun-15

Peer Review Meeting Log (QAC/PolySpace Review)

Source File Name:

SerlComOutpProxy.c

Source File Revision:

2

Source File Name:

Source File Revision:

Source File Name:

Source File Revision:

EA4 Static Analysis Compliance Guideline version:

01.01.00

Poly Space version:

Windows User: eg. 2013b

Polyspace sub project version:

Windows User: eg. TL108a_PolyspaceSuprt_1.0.0

QAC version:

Windows User: eg 8.1.1-R 8.1.1-R

QAC sub project version:

Windows User: eg. TL_100A_1.1.0 1.2.0

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

Contract Folder's header files are appropriate and

kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify that the contract folder contains only the information required for this component. All other variables, constants, function prototypes, etc. should be removed. Rationale: This will help avoid unit testers having to considers object not used. It will also avoid having other files required for QAC.

Yes

Comments:

function prototypes match the latest component version

100% Compliance to the EA4 Static Analysis

Yes

Comments:

Compliance Guideline

Are previously added justification and deviation

N/A

Comments:

comments still appropriate

Do all MISRA deviation comments use approved

Yes

Comments:

deviation tags

Cyclomatic complexity and Static path count OK

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

Yes

Comments:

for all functions in the component per Design

and Coding Standards rule [N47]

General Notes / Comments:

Polyspace will be run on next version.

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:

Gustavo M Nunes

Review Date :

02/09/17

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Krishna

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):