Here's a new peer review checklist to help improve the quality of your embedded C code.
To use the checklist, you should do a sit-down meeting with, ideally, three reviewers not including the code author. Divide the checklist up into three portions as indicated. Be sure to run decent static analysis before the review to safe reviewer time -- let the tools find the easy stuff before spending human time on the review.
After an initial orientation to what the code is supposed to do and relevant background, the review process is:
- The review leader picks the next few lines of code to be reviewed and makes sure everyone is ONLY focused on those few lines. Usually this is 5-10 lines encompassing a conditional structure, a basic block, or other generally unified small chunk within the code.
- Reviewers identify any code problems relevant to their part of the checklist. It's OK if they notice others, but they should focus on individually considering each item in their part of the checklist and ask "do I see a violation of this item" in just the small chunk of code being considered.
- Reviewer comments should be recorded in the form: "Line X seems to violate Checklist Item Y for the following reason." Do NOT suggest a fix -- just record the issue.
- When all comments have been recorded, go back to step 1. Continue to review up to a maximum of 2 hours. You should be covering about 100-200 lines of code per hour. Too fast and too slow are both a problem.
A text version of the checklist is below. You can also download an
acrobat version here. Additional pointers to support materials are after the checklist. If you have a static analysis tool that automates any of the checklist item, feel free to replace that item with something else that's important to you.
===============================================================
Peer Review Checklist: Embedded C Code
Before Review:
0 _____ Code compiles clean with extensive warning checks
(e.g. MISRA C rules)
Reviewer #1:
1 _____ Commenting: top of file, start of function, code
that needs an explanation
2 _____ Style is consistent and follows style guidelines
3 _____ Proper modularity, module size, use of .h files and
#includes
4 _____ No orphans (redundant, dead, commented out, unused
code & variables)
5 _____ Conditional expressions evaluate to a boolean value;
no assignments
6 _____ Parentheses used to avoid operator precedence
confusion
7 _____ All switch statements have a default clause;
preferably an error trap
Reviewer #2:
8 _____ Single point of exit from each function
9 _____ Loop entry and exit conditions correct; minimum
continue/break complexity
10 _____ Conditionals should be minimally nested (generally
only one or two deep)
11 _____ All functions can be unit tested; SCC or SF
complexity less than 10 to 15
12 _____ Use const and inline instead of #define; minimize
conditional compilation
13 _____ Avoid use of magic numbers (constant values
embedded in code)
14 _____ Use strong typing (includes: sized types, structs
for coupled data, const)
15 _____ Variables have well chosen names and are
initialized at definition
Reviewer #3:
16 _____ Minimum scope for all functions and variables;
essentially no globals
17 _____ Concurrency issues? (locking, volatile keyword,
minimize blocking time)
18 _____ Input parameter checking is done (style,
completeness)
19 _____ Error handling for function returns is appropriate
20 _____ Null pointers, division by zero, null strings,
boundary conditions handled
21 _____ Floating point use is OK (equality, NaN, INF,
roundoff); use of fixed point
22 _____ Buffer overflow safety (bound checking, avoid
unsafe string operations)
All Reviewers:
23 _____ Does the code match the detailed design (correct
functionality)?
24 _____ Is the code as simple, obvious, and easy to review
as possible?
For TWO Reviewers assign items: Reviewer#1: 1-11;
23-24 Reviewer#2: 12-24
Items that are covered with static analysis can be removed
from checklist
Template 1/28/2018: Copyright
CC BY 4.0, 2018, Philip Koopman
===============================================================
Additional material to help you with successful peer reviews:
