CMSCommon Design Review

Overview

Sheet 1: Summary Sheet

Rev 2.0

26-Aug-13

Peer Review Summary Sheet

Component 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. CMS_Common

Component Revision:

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. CMSCOMMON_07A.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. Jared Julien

Change Request ID:

11578

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:

MDD

Source Code

Data Dictionary

QAC

Integration Manual

Davinci Files

Comments:

Updates to support DiagMgr updates to generic parameters

General Guidelines:
- The reviews should be performed over the portions of the component that were modified as a result of the Change Request. (Note: If this peer review form was not
completed for pervious versions of this component, the Change Owner should review the entire component and complete the checklist in its entirety prior and check
the form into Syngery. This should be done prior to reviewing the modifications for this Change Result)
- The Change Owner is responsible for completing the entire checklist (Pre and Group review items) prior holding the initial group review.
- New components should include FDD Owner and Intergator as apart of the Group Review Board (Source Code, Integration Manual, and Davinci Files)
- Select "Yes" and add "N/A" to the comments for checklist items that are not applicable for this change

Sheet 2: Source Code

Rev 2.0

26-Aug-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. EPS_DiagSrvcs_ISO.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. 65

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 N/A

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 N/A

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 3

Quality Check Items:

Yes

Rationale is required for all answers of No

Pre-review checklist
(change owners only)

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

Comments:

No Change

Software Design and Coding Standard followed

Comments:

Software Naming Convention followed

Comments:

All buffered outputs are written in every path

Comments:

N/A

Group-review Checklist (review board)

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.

Comments:

Change log contains detailed description of changes

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.

Comments:

N/A

Global Outputs (RTE/Non-RTE) Initialized

Comments:

N/A

Global Outputs are limited to the legal range defined

Comments:

N/A

in the FDD Data dictionary

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.

Comments:

Type Casting and Fix Point Macros use reviewed

Comments:

No change

Function prototype and passed parameters are

Comments:

consistent

General Notes / Comments:

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:

Jared Julien

Review Date :

03/07/14

Group Review Level:

DR4

Lead Peer Reviewer:

Owen Tosh

Approved by Reviewer(s):

Yes

Other Reviewer(s):

Last modified October 12, 2025: Initial commit (0347a62)