Containers Implementation Inspection Checklist
status: draft
security: YES
safety: ASIL_B
realizes: wp__sw_implementation_inspection
doc__containers_impl_inspection
Generic Document

Implementation Inspection Checklist#

Purpose#

The purpose of this checklist is to collect the topics to be checked during implementation, i.e. in the detailed design and the source code of the units.

The checklist shall be agnostic to which programming language is used. Differences shall be treated by linking to C++ or Rust specific documentation.

Conduct#

As described in the concept doc_concept__wp_inspections the following “inspection roles” are expected to be filled:

  • content responsible (author): <contributor/committer explicitly named here, who is the main author, as can be seen in config mgt tooling>

  • reviewer: <contributor/committer explicitly named here, who is the main content reviewer, must be different from content responsible>

  • moderator: <committer explicitly named here, who is is the safety manager, security manager or quality manager initiating the inspection>

Checklist#

It is mandatory to fill in the “passed” column with “yes” or “no” for each checklist item and additionally to add in the remarks why it is passed or not passed. In case of “no” an issue link to the issue tracking system has to be added in the last column (if not solved in the same issue). See also doc_concept__wp_inspections for further information about reviews in general and inspection in particular.

Table 40 Implementation Checklist#

Review ID

Acceptance Criteria

Guidance

Passed

Remarks

Issue link

IMPL_01_01

Is the design according to guidelines?

see gd_temp__detailed_design and doc_concept__imp_concept (e.g. are the views done with the proposed UML diagrams)

IMPL_01_02

Is the implementation according to specification?

Check if the linked component requirements are fulfilled and detailed design also matches architecture description.

IMPL_01_03

Are the design decisions and constraints documented?

Check also for plausibility of these.

IMPL_01_04

Are all external libraries used by the component specified in the detailed design?

Check the automated dependency analysis. Also make sure ASIL rated units also only use ASIL rated libraries.

IMPL_02_01

Are the static and dynamic code analysis reports verified for violations?

All violations in ASIL related code must be justified. This includes the checks of coding guidelines.

IMPL_02_02

Do manual checks, that are derived from the coding guideline, find no safety critical error?

Check this for the programming language used (e.g. C++ <link_to_checks_list>, Rust <link_to_checks_list>)

IMPL_02_03

Are detailed design and source code consistent?

Check if the static and dynamic design descriptions match the code (e.g. naming of elements) and that the respective traceability is established