XcpIf Peer Review Checklists

Overview

Summary Sheet
Synergy Project
Source Code
MDD
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. ES104A_XcpIf_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. 0.0.3

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. K. Smith

Work CR ID:

EA4#7240

kzshz2: Intended Use: Intended to identify at a high level to the reviewers which areas of the component have been changed. Rationale: This will be good information to know when ensuring appropriate reviews have been completed. Modified File Types:

kzshz2: Intended Use: Identify who where the reviewers, what they reviewed, and if the reviewed changes have been approved to release the code for testing. Comments here should be at a highlevel, the specific comments should be present on the specific review form sheet. Rationale: Since this Form will be attached to the Change Request it will confirm the approval and provides feedback in case of audits. ADD DR Level Move reviewer and approval to individual checklist form Review Checklist Summary:

Reviewed:

Yes

MDD

Yes

Source Code

PolySpace

N/A

Integration Manual

N/A

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

Comments:

Design has not been completed

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:

K. Smith

Review Date :

08/30/16

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Kathleen C.

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:

CDD_XcpIf.c

Source File Revision:

Header File Name:

CDD_XcpIf.h

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. 3

MDD Name:

XcpIf_MDD.docx

Revision:

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 all non-vector related names. Some

names were based from Vector's implementation and do not follow our standards.

for constant names

Yes

Comments:

for function names

Yes

Comments:

See comment for variable names

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

Yes

Comments:

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 document yet

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

Yes

Comments:

All other includes are actually needed. (System includes

Yes

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

Yes

Comments:

contain correct information: [N43]

Code formatting (indentation, placement of

Yes

Comments:

braces, etc.) is per standards: [N5], [N55], [N56],

[N57], [N58], [N59]

Embedded constants used per standards; no

Yes

Comments:

"magic numbers": [N12]

Memory mapping for non-RTE code

Yes

Comments:

is per standard

All execution-order-dependent code can be

Yes

Comments:

recognized by the compiler: [N80]

All loops have termination conditions that ensure

Yes

Comments:

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.

Yes

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

Yes

Comments:

null pointer if needed: [N70]

Component outputs are limited to the legal range

Yes

Comments:

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

All code is mapped with FDD (all FDD

Yes

Comments:

subfunctions and/or model blocks identified

with code comments; all code corresponds to

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

Review did not identify violations of other

Yes

Comments:

coding standard rules

Anomaly or Design Work CR created

Yes

Comments: List Anomaly or CR numbers

for any FDD corrections needed

General Notes / Comments:

Change Owner:

K. Smith

Review Date :

08/30/16

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Kathleen C.

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Sheet 4: MDD

Rev 1.2

8-Jun-15

Peer Review Meeting Log (MDD Review)

MDD Name:

XcpIf_MDD.docx

MDD Revision:

Source File Name:

CDD_XcpIf.c

Source File Revision:

Source File Name:

Source File Revision:

Source File Name:

Source File Revision:

Quality Check Items:

Rationale is required for all answers of No

Synergy version matches document

Yes

Comments:

Change log contains detailed description of changes

Yes

Comments:

Changes Highlighted (for Unit Tester)

Yes

Comments:

Diagrams have been included per MDD Guideline

Yes

Comments:

and reviewed

All Design Exceptions and Limitations are listed

Yes

Comments:

Design rationale given for all global

Yes

Comments:

data not communicated through RTE ports, per

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

All implementation details that differ from the FDD are

Yes

Comments:

noted and explained in Design Rationale

All Unit Test Considerations have been described

Yes

Comments:

General Notes / Comments:

Change Owner:

K. Smith

Review Date :

08/30/16

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Kathleen C.

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Sheet 5: PolySpace

Rev 1.2

8-Jun-15

Peer Review Meeting Log (QAC/PolySpace Review)

Source File Name:

CDD_XcpIf.c

Source File Revision:

Source File Name:

Source File Revision:

Source File Name:

Source File Revision:

EA4 Static Analysis Compliance Guideline version:

1.1.0

Poly Space version:

Windows User: eg. 2013b 2013b

Polyspace sub project version:

Windows User: eg. TL108a_PolyspaceSuprt_1.0.0 1

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

Comments:

See comment section

Compliance Guideline

Are previously added justification and deviation

Comments:

See comment section

comments still appropriate

Do all MISRA deviation comments use approved

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 was not performed due to compiler issues with this component. QAC was performed, ensured any MISRA violations were not outside of normal deviations.

No deviations were documented in the source files until Polyspace has been configured and tested on this component.

Change Owner:

K. Smith

Review Date :

08/30/16

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Kathleen C.

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Last modified October 12, 2025: Initial commit (1fadfc4)