{"text_format":"3","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":3,"sheets":["ReadMe","CheckList","Criteria"],"not_rendered":{"defined_names":6,"comments":1},"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"ReadMe","index":0,"n_rows":13,"n_cols":1,"rows_kept":13}
["This code review checklist is designed to be used either as the checklist of a guidebook for the checklist."]
[]
["Each question has assoicated help information embedded in a comment associated with that question. When printing you can either include a print of those comments or print without those comments. The template includes printing of those comments."]
[]
["How to remove comment printing - to print just the checklist"]
["File -> Page Setup"]
["Sheet tab"]
["Print options (middle of window) Comment pulldown select \"(None)\""]
[]
["How to add comment printing - to print as a guidebook"]
["File -> Page Setup"]
["Sheet tab"]
["Print options (middle of window) Comment pulldown select \"At end of sheet\""]

{"sheet":"CheckList","index":1,"n_rows":73,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":73,"merged":[[0,0,0,4],[9,0,9,4],[13,0,13,4],[19,0,19,4],[22,0,22,4],[30,0,30,4],[43,0,43,4],[49,0,49,4],[54,0,54,4],[61,0,61,4],[63,0,63,4],[67,0,67,4],[70,0,70,4]]}
["Component Code Peer Review - Version 1.0 "]
["Software Component Name","RateGroupDriver"]
["Component Developer","Tim Canham"]
["Component Peer Reviewers","Garth Watney, Len Reder, "]
["Software Type","Reuse - No code changes allowed"]
["Review Date","2015-08-06"]
[]
[]
["Question Number","Subject","Developer Assessment","Peer Assessment","Comments"]
[" Prior Phase Completion"]
[1,"Have all action items from the design review been closed?","Yes"]
[{"$f":"A11+1","v":2},"Do all non-closed actions items have NO code impact?","n/a",null,"None left open"]
[{"$f":"A12+1","v":3},"Are all open SPRs for this module incorporated into the code?","n/a",null,"No SPRs"]
[" Package Completeness"]
[{"$f":"A13+1","v":4},"Has the entire component been committed to the remote delivery branch of the Git repository.","Yes"]
[{"$f":"A15+1","v":5},"Does the entire component have a Git tag associated with this review?","No",null,"Might want to revisit this; tag will be for whole repo"]
[6,"Does the unit compile without warnings for all required targets?","Yes"]
[7,"Does the review package contain the latest SLOC count?","Yes",null,{"$f":"25+114+67","v":206}]
[8,"Have the requirements been identified that are satisfied by this component implementation?","Yes"]
["Coding Standards"]
[9,"Does the code adhere to the set of required coding standards?","No",null,"17 (portability)"]
[10,"Does the code pass all static analysis with no warnings?","Yes"]
["Code Architecture"]
[11,"Does each function/method implement a single activity?","Yes"]
[12,"Does each function have one exit point?","Yes"]
[13,"Has a consistent and standard function banner been used and populated ","No",null,"Should this be in .hpp or both? MSL was just in .hpp"]
[14,"Are all loops properly terminated?","Yes"]
[15,"Do all switch statements have a break after each case and terminate with a default case? ","n/a"]
[16,"Are all macro definitions and arguments surrounded by parentheses? ","n/a"]
[17,"Has gating been provided for any potential cyclic error/status messages (e.g. log messages, EVRs, FHTs)?","n/a"]
["Function / Data Usage"]
[{"$f":"A30+1","v":18},"Are declarations grouped into global and static/local?","n/a",null,"This is for C style code. Perhaps for C++ should have public, protected private"]
[{"$f":"A32+1","v":19},"Have all public header files been analyzed and purged of any private data/definitions/etc.?","Yes",null,"Might want to provide an exception for inlining for performance"]
[{"$f":"A33+1","v":20},"Are all variables locally defined unless global or specific visibility is required? ","Yes"]
[21,"Are global declarations uniquely named?","Yes"]
[22,"Has all file static (non-function static) data been created using the STATIC macro?","n/a",null,"All class members"]
[23,"Is the code free of any literals that are not properly documented in the form of macros?","Yes"]
[24,"Have hardware specific code/data been sufficiently documented?  ","n/a"]
[25,"Is the precision of floating point numbers sufficient to ensure accuracy?","n/a"]
[26,"Are all variables initialized before use?","Yes"]
[27,"Have all non-atomic data elements been protected from corruption?","n/a"]
[28,"Have all function input arguments been validated prior to use?","Yes"]
[29,"Have unused arguments to functions been documented?","No",null,"order argument to SchedIn_handler is not documented"]
["Interrupt Service Routines"]
[{"$f":"A43+1","v":30},"Is the code identified as ISR code? (special banner in the function header)","No"]
[{"$f":"A45+1","v":31},"Are all system services called ISR safe? (FSW services, OS services)","n/a"]
[{"$f":"A46+1","v":32},"Is the ISR free of floating point operations?","Yes"]
[{"$f":"A47+1","v":33},"Has the ISR been optimized to minimize the length/execution time?","Yes"]
[{"$f":"A48+1","v":34},"Are any data/structures accessed protected from corruption between ISR and non-ISR code?","Yes"]
["Critical Regions"]
[{"$f":"A49+1","v":35},"Has the critical region been optimized to minimize the length/execution time?","n/a"]
[{"$f":"A51+1","v":36},"Has a test been defined/scheduled to verify the critical region's execution time does not exceed the maximum allowable system jitter?","n/a"]
[{"$f":"A52+1","v":37},"Do all paths guarantee that the critical region is ended?","n/a"]
[{"$f":"A53+1","v":38},"Could the intent of the critical region being achieved with a less restrictive region (e.g. taskLock)?","n/a"]
["Maintainability"]
[{"$f":"A54+1","v":39},"Are there sufficient comments to provide understanding of the code?","No"]
[{"$f":"A56+1","v":40},"Is the unit independent of specific hardware wherever possible?","Yes"]
[{"$f":"A57+1","v":41},"Are any issues/dependencies/constraints related to reuse/reengineering or modifications to the component documented?","Yes"]
[{"$f":"A58+1","v":42},"Can all lines of code be tested at both the unit and system level?","Yes",null,"This seems like a requirement that you verify during the unit test review"]
[41,"Does the code accurately reflect the documentation in the design?","Yes"]
[42,"Has unused/obsolete code been removed or documented?","n/a"]
["Other Mission Impacts"]
[{"$f":"A61+1","v":43},"Have actions been taken for any issues raised at this meeting that impact other missions in development or already in the operational phase?","No"]
["FSW Domain Specific Questions"]
[44,"Have the initialization dependencies, task priorities, message queue depths, etc. been coordinated with the associated project/program integrator(s)?","Yes"]
[45,"Have actions been taken for any potential flight rules or modifications to heritage flight rules identified in this review?","n/a"]
[46,"Have actions been taken for any idiosyncrasies identified in this review?  ","n/a","Yes"]
["Summary"]
[47,"Have all the action items been captured from this code peer review?",null,"Yes"]
[48,"Is the code ready to progress to the test phase?",null,"Yes"]
["Process Improvement"]
[49,"Were all checklist items (questions and / or comments) clear?","Yes","Yes"]
[50,"Was the checklist complete?","Yes","Yes"]

{"sheet":"Criteria","index":2,"n_rows":5,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":5}
["Yes/No",null,"Software Development Type Definitions",null,"Software Catetory Definitions"]
["Yes",null,"Reuse - No code changes allowed",null,"1 - Mission/Safety Critical"]
["No",null,"Re-engineer (Functional)   - Code changes planned (<20%)",null,"2 - Mission/Safety Critical Support"]
["n/a",null,"Re-engineer (Data Only)   - Only data changes planned",null,"3 - Non-Mission/Safety Critical Support"]
[null,null,"New - new or >20% modified",null,"4 - Engineering Support"]