|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 1.0 | 23-Jul-13 |
 | Peer Review Summary Sheet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Component Name: |
|
|
| kzshz2:
Intended Use: Identify which component is being reviewed
Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this form is not attaced to the the wrong change request.
ActivePull |
| Component Revision: |
|
|
| kzshz2:
Intended Use: Identify which component is being reviewed
Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this form is not attaced to the the wrong change request.
SF13_003.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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.
Lovepreet Kaur |
| Change Request ID: |
|
|
| 11759 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | MDD |
|
|
| X | Source Code |
|
|
|
| | Data Dictionary |
|
|
| | QAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Integration Manual |
|
|
| | Davinci Files |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Comments: |
|
| Source Code changes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| This will not need unit test changes since code is reverted to previous version which was already unit tested. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 1.0 | 23-Jul-13 |
Peer Review Meeting Log (Source Code Review) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source File Name: |
|
|
|
|
| kzshz2:
Intended Use: Identify which .asm, .c, or .h file is being reviewed
Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this sheet is not attached to the wrong design review form.
Ap_ActivePull.c |
| Source File Revision: |
|
|
| kzshz2:
Intended Use: Identify which version of the source file is being review.
Rationale: Required for traceability between source code and review. Auditors will likely require this.
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Module Design Document Name: |
|
|
|
|
| kzshz2:
Intended Use: Identify which version of the MDD this source file was written against.
Rationale: Needed for traceability between source code and MDD
ActivePull |
| MDD Revision: |
|
|
| kzshz2:
Intended Use: Identify which version of the MDD this source file was written against.
Rationale: Needed for traceability between source code and MDD
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Data Dictionary Revision: |
|
|
|
| kzshz2:
Intended Use: Identify which version of the Data Dictionary was referenced for ranges during the source file review.
Rationale: Needed for traceability between source code and DD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quality Check Items: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| Rationale is required for all answers of No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Telelogic Synergy version matches header |
|
|
|
|
|
| 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.
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Change log contains detailed description of changes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Code compared vs requirements (Document or Model) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| kzshz2:
Intended Use: Identify if previous version was compared and only the expected change(s) was present.
Rationale: This is helpful in identifying unapproved (intended or mistaken) changes.
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Analysis performed for Divide by zero |
|
|
|
|
| kzshz2:
Intended Use: To confirm this defensive coding strategy has been taken into consideration
Rationale: Necessary since currently there is no place this is documented
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| No changes made affecting this calculation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Naming Convention and Standard followed |
|
|
|
|
|
| kzshz2:
Intended Use: To confirm the appropriate variable name formats have been used.
Rationale: This is needed to confirm compliance until the QAC tool is updated to automate this check.
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| No Changed made since version 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Global Outputs (RTE/Non-RTE) Initialized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| No Changed made since version 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| No Compiler Errors verified |
|
|
| kzshz2:
Intended Use: To confirm the appropriate variable name formats have been used.
Rationale: This is needed to ensure there will be no errors discovered at the time of integration. A Sandox project may be required to confirm there are no errors until the QAC tool has been evaultated to determine if it can automate this check.
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| No Changed made since version 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All buffered outputs are written in every path |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| No Changed made since version 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Type Casting and Fix Point Macros use reviewed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| No Changed made since version 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Function prototype and passed parameters are |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
| No Changed made since version 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| consistent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| General Notes / Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| This change was made to undo the changes that made in version 12 in order to addres Anomaly 5379. New anomaly 5764 was written to revert those |
|
| changes.Also, updated the NxtrLib, Qac, StdDef and UnitTestEnv components' versions used in the module. |
|
| Unit Test Result reports were updated manually to indicate the latest sw and MDD versions. No unit testing was performed as it wasn't required for changes |
|
| made. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kzshz2:
Intended Use: Identify who where 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.
Group Review Level:
There are four Design Review States that a document may have as follows:
DR1 – Un-reviewed document. The DR1 reviews usually require larger, cross functional review teams (i.e. Management, Hardware Engineering, etc.) It is usually advisable, but not required to include outside representation as well such as system engineers. It is up to the document owner to decide on the scope of the review, however, the peer group can decide that a re-review with additional team member is required.
DR2 – The Document has previously passed through the peer review process, but requires design changes significant enough to require another group peer review.
DR3 – The Document has passed group peer review but needs minor corrections that can be re-reviewed with the Lead Peer Reviewer.
DR4 – The document has passed all peer reviews and is ready for release.
Review Board: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Change Owner: |
|
| Lovepreet Kaur |
| Review Date : |
|
| 04/16/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Manoj Raut |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rev 1.0 | 23-Jul-13 |
Peer Review Meeting Log (MDD Review) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Module Name: |
|
| kzshz2:
Intended Use: Identify which file is has been reviewed
Rationale: Required for traceability. It will help to ensure this sheet is not attached to the wrong design review form.
ActivePull |
|
|
| Module | kzshz2:
Intended Use: Identify how many source files are being reviewed and trace it to the appropriate MDD.
Rationale: Required for traceability between source code and MDD
| 3.4 | of | 3.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MDD Revision: |
|
| kzshz2:
Intended Use: Identify which version of the MDD has been reviewed.
Rationale: Required for traceability between the MDD and review. Auditors will likely require this.
12 |
|
|
| Source File Revision: |
|
|
| kzshz2:
Intended Use: Identify which version of the source file was this MDD written for.
Rationale: Needed for traceability between source code and MDD
13 |
|
| Data Dictionary Revision: |
|
|
|
| kzshz2:
Intended Use: Identify which version of the Data Dictionary was referenced for ranges during the review.
Rationale: Needed for traceability between source code and DD.
Note: Maybe this should be moved to the Summary sheet since there is only one Data Dictionary Version for all changes
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quality Check Items: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yes | No |
| Rationale is required for all answers of No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Telelogic Synergy version matches header |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Change log contains detailed description of changes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Changes Highlighted (for Unit Tester) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| High-level Diagrams have been reviewed (Section 2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Design Exceptions and Limitations are listed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Design Rationale understood captured appropriately |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| X | |
| Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| General Notes / Comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| This change was made to undo the changes that made in version 12 in order to addres Anomaly 5379. New anomaly 5764 was written to revert those |
|
| changes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kzshz2:
Intended Use: Identify who where 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.
Group Review Level:
There are four Design Review States that a document may have as follows:
DR1 – Un-reviewed document. The DR1 reviews usually require larger, cross functional review teams (i.e. Management, Hardware Engineering, etc.) It is usually advisable, but not required to include outside representation as well such as system engineers. It is up to the document owner to decide on the scope of the review, however, the peer group can decide that a re-review with additional team member is required.
DR2 – The Document has previously passed through the peer review process, but requires design changes significant enough to require another group peer review.
DR3 – The Document has passed group peer review but needs minor corrections that can be re-reviewed with the Lead Peer Reviewer.
DR4 – The document has passed all peer reviews and is ready for release.
Review Board: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Change Owner: |
|
| Lovepreet Kaur |
| Review Date : |
|
| 04/16/14 |
| Group Review Level: |
|
|
| DR4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lead Peer Reviewer: |
|
|
| Manoj Raut |
|
| Approved by Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Other Reviewer(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|