Airworthiness-oriented civil aircraft airborne software automatic review method and device

Abstract

The invention provides an airworthiness-oriented civil aircraft airborne software automatic review method and device. The method comprises the following steps that the type of data to be reviewed is obtained; the type of the to-be-reviewed data comprises a software high-level demand, a software low-level demand, a software model design, a software code and a test case; determining review group members and a review checklist according to the type of the to-be-reviewed data; when the type of the to-be-reviewed data is a software high-level demand, the review group members comprise a review group leader and a plurality of review roles; the review roles at least comprise a system engineer, a software engineer, a verification engineer, a quality engineer, a configuration management engineer and a security engineer; the review role reviews the to-be-reviewed data according to the check items associated with the role in the review check list to obtain review suggestions; the review group leader performs quality evaluation on the review suggestions of all the review roles to obtain a review result; the initiator modifies the software according to the review result; and the review role audits the modification of the software, and when the review role accepts the modification of the software, the review is ended. The method is used for defining the review process and improving the review efficiency and quality.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention belongs to the field of computer technology, and in particular relates to an automatic review method and device for civil aircraft onboard software oriented to airworthiness. Background Art

[0002] With the continuous development of civil aviation technology, the functions of aircraft onboard software in flight control, navigation, display systems, etc. are increasing, and the requirements for software quality and reliability are becoming higher and higher. The quality of onboard software is directly related to the safety and reliability of the aircraft, so quality control in the development process becomes particularly important.

[0003] As the main guiding standard and airworthiness basis for civil aviation software design, DO-178B / C standards put forward strict requirements for each stage of the software development process, including requirements, design, coding, verification, quality assurance, etc. Among them, review, as an important part of quality control, is widely used in the software development process and software verification process. Through the review of relevant process materials such as software high-level requirements, software low-level requirements, software model design, software code, software test cases, etc., the R&D team can timely discover and correct potential errors and problems, thereby improving the quality and reliability of the software and ensuring that the software meets airworthiness requirements.

[0004] However, the current review process of civil airborne software often has problems such as non-standard review process, unguaranteed review efficiency and quality, failure of the review process to meet airworthiness requirements, and low review data utilization rate. These problems are mainly manifested in the following aspects: 1) There is a lack of unified standards for the review process and format; 2) The review work of the review participants is not carried out sufficiently and the review quality is low; 3) The timeliness of the review is overly dependent on the individual promotion of the initiator; 4) Review issues are separated from inspection items, and the inspection sheets are perfunctory; 5) Review issues are repeatedly raised and counted; 6) The status of review issues cannot be tracked; 7) Review data is mainly collected through manual statistics, which is inefficient.

[0005] In response to the above issues, it is necessary to establish clear review processes and specifications, and use modern review tools and technologies to improve review efficiency and accuracy, while ensuring the consistency and comprehensiveness of the review in order to better meet airworthiness requirements. Summary of the invention

[0006] The present invention provides an automated review method and device for civil aircraft airborne software oriented to airworthiness, and provides a standardized automated review method for civil aircraft airborne software that meets airworthiness requirements, so as to clarify the review process and improve the review efficiency and quality.

[0007] A first aspect of the present invention provides an automated review method for civil aircraft airborne software for airworthiness, comprising the following steps:

[0008] Obtain the types of materials to be reviewed; the types of materials to be reviewed include: software high-level requirements, software low-level requirements, software model design, software code and test cases;

[0009] Determine the review team members and review checklists based on the type of materials to be reviewed. When the type of materials to be reviewed is high-level software requirements, the review team members include: a review team leader and multiple review roles; the review roles include at least: system engineers, software engineers, verification engineers, quality engineers, configuration management engineers, and security engineers.

[0010] The review role reviews the review materials according to the check items associated with this role in the review checklist and obtains review opinions;

[0011] The review team leader conducts a quality assessment on the review opinions of all review roles and obtains the review results;

[0012] The initiator modifies the software based on the review results;

[0013] The review role reviews the changes to the software, and the review ends when the review role accepts the changes to the software.

[0014] Optionally, different review checklists correspond to the types of materials to be reviewed.

[0015] Optionally, different review roles review different check items in the review checklist.

[0016] Optionally, the review role reviews the review materials according to the check items associated with the role in the review checklist and obtains review opinions, including:

[0017] The review role reviews the review materials item by item according to the check items associated with the review role in the review checklist, and checks the review opinions for each item; the review opinions include: compliant, non-compliant and not applicable; when the review opinion is not applicable, the review role fills in the reasons for not applicable and provides it to the initiator and / or the review team leader;

[0018] After obtaining the inspection opinions of all inspection items associated with the current review role in the review checklist, the review opinions are obtained.

[0019] Optionally, the review role reviews the software modification. When the review role accepts the software modification, the review ends, including:

[0020] The review role reviews the software modification and switches the inspection opinion from non-compliant to compliant / or not applicable when the review role accepts the software modification;

[0021] The review is concluded when the status of all review comments in the review checklist is Compliant / or Not Applicable.

[0022] Optionally, the review role reviews the review materials item by item according to the check items associated with the review role in the review checklist, and checks the review comments for each item, including:

[0023] When the inspection opinion is non-conformance, the review role determines the severity level; the severity levels include: severe, moderate and minor.

[0024] Optional, final review, including:

[0025] Obtain the review opinions of each review role and classify and count them according to the severity level and status of the review opinions;

[0026] And generate review airworthiness evidence based on the classification statistical results; the review airworthiness evidence includes the review role, review opinion severity level, review opinion status, review opinion confirmation information, and review opinion modification information corresponding to all review opinions.

[0027] A second aspect of the present invention provides an automated airworthiness review device for civil aircraft onboard software, which is used to execute the method as described in any one of the first aspects.

[0028] The present invention provides an airworthiness-oriented civil aircraft airborne software automated review method and device, the present invention has simple steps, reasonable design, and is easy to implement and use. The present invention can solve the problems of non-standard civil aircraft software review process, unguaranteed review efficiency and review quality through methods such as automatic flow of review process, quality assessment of review results, and consultation and confirmation of review opinions, thereby improving the efficiency and quality of civil aircraft software review. The present invention can solve the problems of low review data utilization rate, inability of the review process to meet airworthiness requirements, etc. through methods such as statistical analysis of review data and automatic generation of review airworthiness evidence, thereby improving the airworthiness compliance of airborne software. In summary, the technical solution of the present invention is reasonably designed, and can solve the problems of non-standard civil aircraft software review process, inability to guarantee review efficiency and review quality, inability of the review process to meet airworthiness requirements, and low review data utilization rate, thereby effectively improving the efficiency, quality and airworthiness compliance of civil aircraft software review. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0029] Figure 1 It is a schematic diagram of the automated review steps for implementing the present invention;

[0030] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the review process. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0031] In order to make the purpose, technical solution and advantages of the embodiments of the present invention clearer, the technical solution in the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below in conjunction with the drawings in the embodiments of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments are part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without making creative work are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0032] The features and illustrative embodiments of various aspects of the present invention will be described in detail below. In the detailed description below, many specific details are proposed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the present invention. However, it is obvious to those skilled in the art that the present invention can be implemented without the need for some of these specific details. The following description of the embodiments is only to provide a better understanding of the present invention by illustrating examples of the present invention. The present invention is by no means limited to any specific settings and methods proposed below, but covers any improvements, replacements and modifications of structures, methods, devices without departing from the spirit of the present invention. In the accompanying drawings and the following description, known structures and technologies are not shown to avoid unnecessary ambiguity in the present invention.

[0033] It should be noted that, in the absence of conflict, the embodiments of the present invention and the features in the embodiments can be combined with each other, and the embodiments can refer to and quote each other. The present invention will be described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and in combination with the embodiments.

[0034] The present invention is further described in detail below in conjunction with embodiments and drawings, but the embodiments of the present invention are not limited thereto.

[0035] The present invention discloses an airworthiness-oriented civil aircraft airborne software automated review method, which includes three steps: pre-review, review process and review end. Pre-review includes three processes: review material preparation, review role allocation and review initiation. Among them, review material preparation includes preparing materials to be reviewed, filling in basic information of review materials, and selecting review checklists; review role allocation is to select review roles according to airworthiness requirements; review initiation is to create review requests, set review cycles, and create review tasks. The review process includes multi-role review, review result quality assessment, review opinion processing and review closure. Among them, multi-role review is that the assigned review roles review the review materials respectively; review result quality assessment is that the review team leader preliminarily processes and confirms all review opinions; review opinion processing is that the review initiator processes the review opinions of all roles; review closure is to close the review process after all review opinions are confirmed. The review end includes review data statistics, generation of review airworthiness evidence and review end. Among them, review data statistics is to automatically collect the review opinions of each review role and conduct classified statistics; generating review airworthiness evidence is to automatically generate review airworthiness evidence according to the organization's airworthiness template; the end of the review is to form a review summary report with the review process data.

[0036] The technical problems to be solved by the present invention are: the civil airborne software review process is not standardized, the review efficiency and review quality cannot be guaranteed, the review process cannot meet the airworthiness requirements, and the review data utilization rate is low.

[0037] In order to solve the above technical problems, the present invention is implemented through the following technical solutions:

[0038] An automated review method for civil aircraft airborne software for airworthiness includes three steps: pre-review, review process, and review end, which are carried out as follows:

[0039] Step 1) Before the review: Before the review, preparations for the review must be made, including preparation of review materials, allocation of review roles, and initiation of the review.

[0040] Preparation of review materials: Before the review begins, the initiator needs to prepare review-related materials and information, including preparing the materials to be reviewed, filling in the basic information of the review materials, and selecting the review checklist. The materials to be reviewed can be software high-level requirements, software low-level requirements, software model design, software code, test cases, etc. Different review materials correspond to different types of review checklists. The materials to be reviewed can be complete documents, codes, test cases, etc., or the comparison results of two versions of documents, codes, and test cases. Review materials can be imported or directly selected based on the existing organizational process asset library. The basic information of the review materials includes the version number and storage address of the materials to be reviewed. If the organization already has a review problem record template, the information in the template can be included here. According to the type of materials to be reviewed, select the review checklist in the organizational process asset library. Each check item in the review checklist has three options: "Compliant", "Not Compliant" and "Not Applicable". The review initiator identifies the "Not Applicable" item and writes the reason. For example, according to DO-178B / C, there is no independence requirement for airborne software with a development level of D, and the independence-related check items are marked as "Not Applicable".

[0041] Assign review roles: The review roles include the peer review lead (PRL), system engineer (SYS), software engineer (SW), verification engineer (SVV), quality engineer (QA), configuration management engineer (CM), and safety engineer (Safety). Each role has a different review focus, and the review materials are selected based on airworthiness requirements. In order to meet airworthiness requirements, the review of high-level software requirements should include at least one SYS, one SW, one SVV, one QA, and one Safety role; the review of low-level software requirements, software model design, and software code may not include SYS; the review of test cases and other materials in the software verification process may not include SYS, SW, and Safety roles. The peer review lead PRL is responsible for evaluating and confirming the quality of the review opinions of other roles.

[0042] Initiate a review: The initiator creates a review request, sets the review cycle for the review, automatically sends emails to the corresponding roles, and creates review tasks for each role. The review task status includes six states: "Not Started", "Under Review", "Under Revision", "Revision Completed", "Review Completed", and "Review Closed". At the same time, set a review deadline reminder. When there is 1 day left in the review cycle or the review cycle is exceeded, the roles with the review task status of "Not Started" and "Under Review" will be reminded.

[0043] Step 2) Review process: Figure 2 The specific review process shown includes multi-role review, quality assessment of review results, handling of review opinions and review closure.

[0044] Multi-role review: The review roles assigned in step 1) review the review materials respectively and set their own review tasks to "under review". Each role conducts the review according to its own review task, and different roles can conduct the review at the same time. When the reviewer makes a review opinion, the review checklist will automatically pop up. The reviewer will check "non-compliance" for the check items related to the problem in the checklist, and fill in the problem level of the review opinion. The problem level is divided into three types: "serious", "general" and "minor". Each review opinion includes the initiator's "acceptance" and "rejection" of the review opinion, and the reviewer confirms "agree" and "disagree". The initial status of the review opinion is "acceptance", which means that the initiator accepts the opinion by default. Each review opinion is accompanied by the reviewer's role attribute information, which is used to count the number of problems of different roles. The review records and checklist filling records of previous reviewers are retained in the review materials to avoid repeated raising of similar issues, but the current reviewer can only view and add review opinions to the previous review records, and cannot modify them. After each role's review is completed, set its own review task to "review completed".

[0045] Quality assessment of review results: After all roles have finished reviewing, the review team leader PRL will be automatically prompted to make preliminary processing and confirmation of all review opinions. If it is confirmed to be a problem, it will be marked as agreed; if it is confirmed not to be a problem, it will be marked as disagreed and the reason will be stated; if there is doubt about the review opinion, it will be marked as pending confirmation and the doubt point will be stated.

[0046] PRL confirms the check items marked as not applicable in the checklist. If confirmed as not applicable, mark "agree"; if confirmed as other, mark "disagree" and state the reason. After PRL changes the review task status to "review completed", it automatically prompts the review initiator to handle the review comments.

[0047] Processing review opinions: The review initiator changes the review status to "Under Revision" and handles the review opinions of all roles. For review opinions that the initiator believes are not problems or are questionable, the initiator consults the corresponding problem raiser and reaches an agreement with the problem raiser. There are two ways to consult: one is offline communication, and the communication results are explained online; the other is online opinion reply. For review opinions with a "reject" status, the initiator writes the reason for rejection and sends it back to the corresponding reviewer for confirmation. The initiator modifies all review opinions with a status of "Accepted". After the modification is completed, the review status is changed to "Revision Completed" and the modified review materials are automatically sent to the reviewer for confirmation. If the reviewer confirms that the modification is correct, the corresponding review opinion status is changed to "Agree" and the corresponding item in the review checklist is changed to "Comply". If the reviewer confirms that there are still problems, the corresponding review opinion status is changed to "Disagree" and automatically sent back to the initiator for further modification until all review opinions have been confirmed as "Agree".

[0048] Review Closed: All review comments with the status of "Accepted" are retained in the checklist. The system checks the following two conditions and prompts the initiator to confirm according to the corresponding conditions. The initiator can change the review status to "Review Closed" only after both conditions are met.

[0049] Check condition 1: All review opinions have been confirmed as "agree";

[0050] Check condition 2: All check items in the checklist are checked as “Compliant” or “Not Applicable”.

[0051] Step 3) End of review: After the review process is closed, the review data is collated and analyzed, including review data statistics, generation of review airworthiness evidence and end of review.

[0052] Review data statistics: Automatically collect the review opinions of each review role and classify and count them, including classifying the review opinions by severity level and by review opinion status.

[0053] Generate review airworthiness evidence: Automatically generate review airworthiness evidence according to the organization airworthiness template and export it to Excel format. Review airworthiness evidence includes review roles, review opinion severity levels, review opinion status, review opinion confirmation information, and review opinion modification information corresponding to all review opinions.

[0054] End of review: The review process data is exported to PDF format to form a review summary report, including the status flow process of all review opinions and review data statistics.

[0055] Summary: Press Figure 1The invention provides an automated review step for civil aircraft airborne software oriented to airworthiness. The invention can solve the problems of non-standard review process for civil aircraft airborne software, failure to ensure review efficiency and review quality, failure to meet airworthiness requirements during the review process, and low review data utilization rate, thereby improving the efficiency, quality and airworthiness compliance of civil aircraft airborne software review.

[0056] The above description is only a further embodiment of the present invention, but the protection scope of the present invention is not limited thereto. Any technician familiar with the technical field can make equivalent replacements or changes according to the technical solutions and concepts of the present invention within the scope disclosed by the present invention, which belong to the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. An automated review method for civil aircraft airborne software for airworthiness, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: Obtain the type of information to be reviewed; The types of materials to be reviewed include: software high-level requirements, software low-level requirements, software model design, software code and test cases; Determine the review team members and review checklists based on the type of materials to be reviewed. When the type of materials to be reviewed is high-level software requirements, the review team members include: a review team leader and multiple review roles; the review roles include at least: system engineers, software engineers, verification engineers, quality engineers, configuration management engineers, and security engineers. The review role reviews the review materials according to the check items associated with this role in the review checklist and obtains review opinions; The review team leader conducts a quality assessment on the review opinions of all review roles and obtains the review results; The initiator modifies the software based on the review results; The review role reviews the modifications to the review materials, and the review ends when the review role accepts the modifications to the software.

2. The review method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Different review checklists correspond to the types of materials to be reviewed.

3. The review method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Different review roles review different check items in the review checklist.

4. The review method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The review role reviews the review materials according to the check items associated with this role in the review checklist and obtains review opinions, including: The review role reviews the review materials item by item according to the check items associated with the review role in the review checklist, and checks the review opinions for each item; the review opinions include: compliant, non-compliant and not applicable; when the review opinion is not applicable, the review role fills in the reasons for not applicable and provides it to the initiator and / or the review team leader; After obtaining the inspection opinions of all inspection items associated with the current review role in the review checklist, the review opinions are obtained.

5. The review method according to claim 4, characterized in that: The review role reviews the software modifications. When the review role accepts the software modifications, the review ends, including: The review role reviews the software modification and switches the inspection opinion from non-compliant to compliant / or not applicable when the review role accepts the software modification; The review is concluded when the status of all review comments in the review checklist is Compliant / or Not Applicable.

6. The review method according to claim 4, characterized in that: The review role reviews the review materials item by item according to the check items associated with the review role in the review checklist, and checks the review opinions for each item, including: When the inspection opinion is non-conformance, the review role determines the severity level of the review opinion; the severity levels include: severe, general and minor.

7. The review method according to claim 6, characterized in that: Final review, including: Obtain the review opinions of each review role and classify and count them according to the severity level and status of the review opinions; And generate review airworthiness evidence based on the classification statistical results; the review airworthiness evidence includes the review role, review opinion severity level, review opinion status, review opinion confirmation information, and review opinion modification information corresponding to all review opinions.

8. The review method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The review team leader conducts a quality assessment of the review opinions of all review roles, including: The review team leader shall confirm all review opinions. If it is confirmed to be a problem, it shall be marked as agreed; if it is confirmed to be no problem, it shall be marked as disagreed and the reason shall be stated; if it is confirmed to be doubtful, it shall be marked as pending confirmation and the doubtful point shall be stated; The review team leader shall confirm the inspection items marked as not applicable in the checklist. If confirmed as not applicable, mark "agree"; otherwise, mark "disagree" and state the reasons.

9. An automatic review device for civil aircraft airborne software for airworthiness, characterized in that: Used to perform the method according to any one of claims 1 to 8.

Images