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

Return to the regular view of this page.

Component Design

1: SF005A_StOutpCtrl_Design_PeerReviewChkList

Component Design

Component Documentation

SF005A_StOutpCtrl_Design_PeerReviewChkList.html

1 - SF005A_StOutpCtrl_Design_PeerReviewChkList

Nexteer_Template_V1.0

Overview

Peer Review Instructions
Technical Review Checklist
Template Change Log

Sheet 1: Peer Review Instructions

Instructions for Functional Design Package Peer Review

PRE-MEETING
	Function Owner	Confirm that requirements are reviewed and approved PRIOR to the FDP peer review
	Function Owner	Start with latest version of the template for any "first reviews" - Continue to use existing temmplate for re-reviews
	Function Owner	Provide the functional design package (changed documents) to the invited attendees 1-2 working days in advance of review
	Function Owner	Notify the assigned peer reviewer and make sure they are prepared to do their function in the meeting
	Function Owner	Identify necessary attendance and invite to meeting
	Function Owner	Complete the "Author" column information for sections 1 through 5 prior to the review
	Function Owner	Complete the attendance invitation list in section 7
	Function Owner	For Re-reviews only: Complete the column "remarks by author" to identify actions taken to address items found in earlier reviews.

DURING MEETING
	Function Owner	Present document changes to the review team
	Peer Reviewer	Capture attendance of the review
	Peer Reviewer	Capture actions and issues in section 6. Identify issue summary, Document type, Reference (Requirement ID, section number, etc), Defect Type and indicate status as "OPEN"

POST MEETING
	Function Owner	Follow up on all "open" items. Update "Summary of Resolution" to indicate what was done or decided.
	Function Owner	Schedule follow up review OR review open items with peer reviewer and obtain agreement to close
	Peer Reviewer	Close change request in system and confirm all associated tasks are complete. Upload peer review checklist (this document) with any FDP updates

Sheet 2: Technical Review Checklist

Technical Review Checklist - Template Version 02.02.00

Product Name

Electric Power Steering

Electrical Arch.

Review Scope

Defect Type

Numbers

Yes

Closed

Function ID

SF005A_StOutpCtrl

Change Control #: EA4#4403
- As per anomaly CR EA4#783, input name 'SysDiRampTo ZeroAct'
Changed to 'SysStFltOutpReqDi' to make it consistent with output of ES101A
- Following inputs signal name changed both in DD and Model
LoaMotTqCmdSca -> LoaSca
LoaRampRate -> LoaRateLim
- LoaRateLim.EngMin = 0.01 updated in DD to make it consistent with SF049A
- Following Global constants added to Data Dict
ARCHGLBPRM_FLOATZEROTHD_ULS_F32,
ARCHGLBPRM_2MILLISEC_SEC_F32

Requirement

Rejected

FDD

Long Name

State Output Control

Interface

Open

Model

Version that you started from. NOT the version you hope to release. If this will be v1.0.0, enter NA. Starting Baseline

Rev1.2.0

Effort

Design

FMEA

Author

Review Effort(Hrs.)

Standards

*.m File

Corr+Verf effort(Hrs.)

Documentation

Cal Process

Total Effort (Hrs.)

0.00

Others

Total

Checklist No.

Description of Check

Author: This column is for Self review. Author shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. Author

Author: This column is for reviewer. Reviewer shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. Reviewer

Author: Detailed Description of the finding shall be provided by the reviewer. Description of finding by reviewer

Author: Defect type to be selected. Defect Type

Author: What action is taken to fix the comment & other remarks need to be filled by author. Remarks By Author

Author: Data in this column shall be filled by reviewer after checking whether the rework is completed. Status

Section 1: Data Dictionary

Is Filename of Data Dictionary in correct format?

Yes

Is the FDD.Version property correctly updated?

Yes

Is the Data Dictionary Verification report error free?

Some violations are present for a signal not avaiable in the Nexteer list and some variables are not in the Nexteer pattern. Correction of these violations are out of anomaly/work CR scope

Does FDD Long Name, Short Name, and Description match requirements?

Yes

Are all runnables defined?

Yes

Do runnables have the correct time step?

Yes

Do server runnables correctly define arguments?

Are all clients defined?

Do client definitions match the corresponding server runnable?

Does name and metadata of every signal match its corresponding interface signal?

Yes

Do output signal ranges match requirements (check DOOR min/max attributes too)?

Yes

Are calibration tables named correctly (e.g. AssiX and AssiY)?

Are all data types represented by released Data_Management classes?

Yes

Do all calibrations have correct values for all metadata?

Is NVM defined in the appropriate number of blocks?

Are constants defined with proper scope (local vs global)?

Yes

Are all dependent constants and calibrations included in one file?

Does FDD.DesignASIL match requirements?

Yes

Section 2: Model

Author: This column is for Self review. Author shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. Author

Author: This column is for reviewer. Reviewer shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. Reviewer

Author: Detailed Description of the finding shall be provided by the reviewer. Description of finding by reviewer

Author: Defect type to be selected. Defect Type

Author: What action is taken to fix the comment & other remarks need to be filled by author. Remarks By Author

Author: Data in this column shall be filled by reviewer after checking whether the rework is completed. Status

Is filename of model in correct format?

Yes

Is Top level of model annotated with Requirements Baseline?

Yes

Is the Top level of the model annotated with Tool Dependencies?

Yes

Is Top level of model annotated with Change Log or History?

Yes

Is the 2nd level of model free from subsystems that are not Function-Call Subsystems?

Yes

Is the 2nd level of model free from arithmetic and logic operations?

Yes

Are the Runnable trigger signals named as "call_<Runnable>"?

Yes

Does 2nd level of model have a properly updated annotation with name, description, and intended baseline number?

Yes

Are all data flow layers free of Function-Call Subsystems and Memory Store blocks?

Yes

Does the Model have the confidentiality and copyright information inside all its Subsystems?

Yes

Are all the Memory Store blocks for PIM and Display Variables located on the 2nd level of model?

Yes

Is each diagnostic (NTC) capable of being set to "PASS"?

Does non-zero intialization of PIM occur in the function's Init runnable?

Yes

Does design properly include Set Ram Block Status when NVM RAM values change?

Does model include appropriate logic for dealing with missing or corrupted NVM data?

Does model execute without errors/warnings after loading NxtrMBDConfig configuration set?

Yes

Section 3: Requirements Linking

Author: This column is for Self review. Author shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. Author

Author: This column is for reviewer. Reviewer shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. Reviewer

Author: Detailed Description of the finding shall be provided by the reviewer. Description of finding by reviewer

Author: Defect type to be selected. Defect Type

Author: What action is taken to fix the comment & other remarks need to be filled by author. Remarks By Author

Author: Data in this column shall be filled by reviewer after checking whether the rework is completed. Status

Are all requirements links of the format <FDDNumber>_<ObjectID>?

Yes

Does requirements HTML report reference only the DOORS module of this component for all links in the design?

Yes

Are linked blocks linked to the correct requirements(s)? (watch for problems due to copy/pasted blocks)

Yes

Is the list of unlinked blocks acceptable?

Yes

Section 4: Model Advisor

Author: This column is for Self review. Author shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. Author

Author: This column is for reviewer. Reviewer shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. Reviewer

Author: Detailed Description of the finding shall be provided by the reviewer. Description of finding by reviewer

Author: Defect type to be selected. Defect Type

Author: What action is taken to fix the comment & other remarks need to be filled by author. Remarks By Author

Author: Data in this column shall be filled by reviewer after checking whether the rework is completed. Status

Was Model Advisor run with the correct configuration settings?

Yes

Is the Model Advisor rerport free from "Fails".

There are licence checkout errors

Are Model Advisor report "Warnings" acceptable?

Yes

Section 5: Delivery Package

Author: This column is for Self review. Author shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. Author

Author: This column is for reviewer. Reviewer shall fill Yes/No/NA against each point in checklist. Reviewer

Author: Detailed Description of the finding shall be provided by the reviewer. Description of finding by reviewer

Author: Defect type to be selected. Defect Type

Author: What action is taken to fix the comment & other remarks need to be filled by author. Remarks By Author

Author: Data in this column shall be filled by reviewer after checking whether the rework is completed. Status

Does Design folder contain only the model, data dictionary, and (optionally) a simulation setup script?

Yes

Does Doc folder contain a zipped HTML webview model?

Yes

Was webview model created without requirements highlighted?

Yes

Does Reports folder contain only the data dictionary verification report, Model Advisor report, and zipped requirements traceability report?

Yes

Section 6: Other Issus/Actions Identified

Document

Reference

Summary of resolution

Author: Defect type to be selected. Defect Type

Author: What action is taken to fix the comment & other remarks need to be filled by author. Remarks By Author

Author: Data in this column shall be filled by reviewer after checking whether the rework is completed. Status

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

Section 7: APPROVALS

Role

First Review

Date

Attendance

Approval?

Function Owner*

Muragesh Asundi

3/16/2016

Yes

Peer Reviewer*

Scott Weiss

Yes

Safety

Software

ESG / Systems

EPDT / CSE

Hardware

Test

Role

Second Review (if required)

Date

Attendance

Approval?

Function Owner*

Peer Reviewer*

<Name>

Safety

Software

ESG / Systems

EPDT / CSE

Hardware

Test

Role

Third Review (if required)

Date

Attendance

Approval?

Function Owner*

Peer Reviewer*

<Name>

Safety

Software

ESG / Systems

EPDT / CSE

Hardware

Test

Role

Fourth Review (if required)

Date

Attendance

Approval?

Function Owner*

Peer Reviewer*

<Name>

Safety

Software

ESG / Systems

EPDT / CSE

Hardware

Test

Role

Add more if necessary

Date

Attendance

Approval?

P.S.:

Yes indicates adherence

No indicates non-adherence, reviewer shall provide suitable comments at the end of this document for each point.

NA indicates not applicable

Sheet 3: Template Change Log

Rev	Change	Author
01.00.05	Added lesson learned #3.5	MDK
01.00.06	Added lesson learned #3.6, 3.7 - Structure and writing of NVM in mfiles and models.	MDK
02.00.00	Combined ESG and Systems into one, compatible with Data_Management 2.13.0 of CreateDD and VerifyDD.	K. Derry
02.01.00	Added: Does FDD.DesignASIL match requirements? Added: Was webview model created without requirements highlighted? Removed: Redundant row in Data Dictionary section. Formatting: Column C now consistently center-justified.	K. Derry
02.02.00	Added: Are all data types represented by released Data_Management classes? Removed: Are all runnables defined? Rationale: Automated tools checking. Removed: Does the Component shortname match data dictionary FDD metadata? Removed: "Data store name must resolve to Simulink signal object" Edited: Model Advisor report should now be left unzipped.	K. Derry