This is the multi-page printable view of this section. Click here to print.

Return to the regular view of this page.

Component Implementation

Component Implementation

Component Documentation

1 - SerlComInpProxy_PeerReviewChecklist


Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Davinci Files
Source Code


Sheet 1: Summary Sheet
























Rev 1.28-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/AMDD


YesSource Code


NoPolySpace









































NoIntegration Manual


YesDavinci 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 1.28-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



























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 1.28-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):