Json Architecture Inspection Checklist		status: draft security: YES safety: ASIL_B
realizes: wp__sw_arch_verification

doc__json_arc_inspection		Generic Document

Architecture Inspection Checklist#

Purpose#

The purpose of the software architecture checklist is to ensure that the design meets the criteria and quality as defined per project processes and guidelines for feature and component architectural design elements. It helps to check the compliance with requirements, identify errors or inconsistencies, and ensure adherence to best practices. The checklist guides evaluation of the architecture design, identifies potential problems, and aids in communication and documentation of architectural decisions to stakeholders.

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 44 Architecture Design Review Checklist#
Review Id	Acceptance criteria	Guidance	passed
ARC_01_01	Is the traceability from software architectural elements to requirements, and other level architectural elements (e.g. component to interface) established according to the “Relations between the architectural elements” as described in doc_concept__arch_process?	automated	Trace should be checked automatically by tool support in the future. Will be removed from the checklist once the requirement (gd_req__arch_build_blocks_corr) is implemented. Refer to Tool Requirements for the current status.
ARC_01_02	Does the software architecture design consider all the requirements allocated or belonging to the architectural element, including functional, non-functional, safety, and security requirements and all related design decisions?	manual	Check if all requirements allocated or belonging to the architectural element are considered in the design. This includes functional requirements (e.g. functional safety requirements), non-functional requirements (e.g. performance, reliability), and security requirements (e.g. confidentiality, integrity). Additionally, ensure that all related design decisions are taken into account and documented in the architectural design.
ARC_01_03	If the architectural element is related to any supplier manuals (incl. safety and security) are the relevant parts covered?	If the architecture makes use of supplied elements, their manuals (like safety) have to be considered (i.e. its provided functionality matches the expectation and assumptions are fulfilled). Note that in case of safety component this means that assumed Technical Safety Requirements and AoUs of the safety manual are covered.
ARC_01_04	Is the architectural element traceable to the lower level artifacts as defined by the workproduct traceability?	Will be removed from checklist once the requirement (gd_req__arch_build_blocks_corr) is implemented by automated tool check. See Tool Requirements. Details of possible linking can be depicted from doc_concept__general_traceability.
ARC_02_01	Is the software architecture design compliant with the (overall) feature architecture?	On component level check against the feature architecture, on feature level check other features with common components used.
ARC_02_02	Is appropriate and comprehensible operation/interface naming present in the architectural design?	Check gd_guidl__arch_design
ARC_02_03	Are correctness of data flow and control flow within the architectural elements considered?	E.g. examine definitions, transformations, integrity, and interaction of data; check error handling, data exchange between elements, correct response to inputs and documented decision making. Note: consistency is ensured by the process/tooling, by defining each interface only once.
ARC_02_04	Are the interfaces between the software architectural element and other architectural elements well-defined?	Check if the interface reacts on non-defined behaviour or errors; can established protocols be used; are the interfaces for inputs, outputs, error codes documented; is loose coupling considered and only limited exposure; can unit or integration test be written against the interface; data amount transferred; no sensitive data exposure;
ARC_02_05	Does the software architectural element consider the timing constraints (from the parent requirement)?	If there are hard requirements on the timing a programming time estimation should be performed and also deadline supervision considered.
ARC_02_06	Is the documentation of the software architectural element, including textual and graphical descriptions (e.g., UML diagrams), comprehensible and complete?	Use of semi-formal notation is expected for architectural elements with an allocated ASIL level. Is the architecture template correctly filled?
ARC_03_01	Is the architectural element modular and encapsulated?	Check e.g. that only minimal interfaces are used. Design should be object oriented. Interfaces and interactions are clearly defined. Usage of access types (private, protected) properly set. Limited global variables.
ARC_03_02	Is the suitability of the software architecture for future modifications and maintainability considered?	Check for e.g. loose coupling, separation of concerns, high cohesion, versioning strategy for interfaces, decision records, use of established design patterns.
ARC_03_03	Are simplicity and avoidance of unnecessary complexity present in the software architecture and the component?	Indicators for complexity are: number of use cases (corresponding to dynamic diagrams) allocated to single design element, number of interfaces and operations in an interface, function parameters, global variables, complex types, limited comprehensibility. The belonging code metrics (see gd_req__impl_complexity_analysis) should be checked. Notes: If the “number of use cases” or “number of interfaces” above exceeds “3” or “number of function parameters” exceeds “5” or the “number of operations” exceeds “20” or global variables are used, a design rationale is mandatory. See also if component classification gd_temp__component_classification as measure is present.
ARC_03_04	Is the software architecture design following best practices and design principles?	Refer to architectural guidelines and recommendations within the project documentation.
ARC_04_03	If your software architectural design of the component includes processes and tasks, are their scheduling policies and priorities (at least the needed relation one to another) defined to ensure that timing requirements are met? Please note, that the particular priorities or priority ranges will be probably defined by the project handbook or the software development plan. Note: see std_req__iso26262__software_743	Give a reason for these scheduling policies and priorities or explain why not needed.

Attention

The above checklist entries must be filled according to your component architecture in scope.

Note: If a Review ID is not applicable for your architecture, then state “”n/a” in status and comment accordingly in remarks.

The following static views in “valid” state and with “inspected” tag set are in the scope of this inspection:

ID	Status	Tags
comp_arc_sta__baselibs__json	valid	baselibs

and the following dynamic views:

No needs passed the filters