Home Learning Paths ECU Lab Assessments Interview Preparation Arena Pricing Log In Sign Up

ASPICE SUP.8: Configuration Management

CM ActivityDefinitionTool/Evidence
Configuration Item (CI) identificationDefine what is under CM: source code, ARXML, test scripts, tool versions, DOORS baselinesCM Plan lists all CIs; DMS and Git store them
BaselineApproved, timestamped snapshot of all CIs at a project milestoneGit tag + CI list in CM record; ARXML baseline in Polarion
Status accountingTrack which baseline each CI version belongs toGit log + JIRA CR reference; Polarion work product version history
Integrity verificationVerify that a delivered item matches its baselineGit commit hash verification; checksum in delivery note

ASPICE SUP.10: Change Request Management

Pythoncr_workflow_simulation.py
#!/usr/bin/env python3
# CR (Change Request) workflow per ASPICE SUP.10
from enum import Enum
from dataclasses import dataclass

class CRState(Enum):
    OPEN = "Open"
    UNDER_REVIEW = "Under Review"
    APPROVED = "Approved"
    REJECTED = "Rejected"
    IMPLEMENTED = "Implemented"
    VERIFIED = "Verified"
    CLOSED = "Closed"

@dataclass
class ChangeRequest:
    id: str
    title: str
    safety_impact: str  # ASIL level or "None"
    state: CRState
    impact_analysis: str
    safety_manager_approved: bool

def process_cr(cr: ChangeRequest) -> None:
    print(f"[{cr.id}] {cr.title}")
    print(f"  Safety Impact: {cr.safety_impact}")
    print(f"  Current State: {cr.state.value}")

    # State transition rules
    if cr.state == CRState.UNDER_REVIEW:
        if cr.safety_impact != "None" and not cr.safety_manager_approved:
            print("  BLOCKED: Safety-impacting CR requires Safety Manager approval before Approved state")
        elif not cr.impact_analysis:
            print("  BLOCKED: Impact analysis required before CR can be Approved")
        else:
            print("  → Transition to: Approved")
    print()

# Example CRs
crs = [
    ChangeRequest("CR-0892", "Fix race condition in ABS_Blending", "ASIL B",
                  CRState.UNDER_REVIEW, "Impact: ABS module + ESC interface; test scope: ABS unit + integration test",
                  True),
    ChangeRequest("CR-0893", "Update copyright header in all files", "None",
                  CRState.UNDER_REVIEW, "Documentation only — no binary change",
                  False),  # no SM approval needed for non-safety CR
]

for cr in crs:
    process_cr(cr)

Version Control Strategy for AUTOSAR Projects

RepositoryContentsBranching StrategyBaseline Rule
Application SWC source, headers, linker scriptsFeature branches; integration on 'develop'; release tags on 'main'Git tag at each CR implementation: sw_v3.2_CR0892
BSW Configuration ARXMLDaVinci/EB tresos ARXML filesSame as Application SW; ARXML diff review in GerritARXML baseline hash in CR record
Generated CodeRTE, MCAL, BSW generated filesGenerated — do not manually edit; regenerate from ARXML baselineGerrit: generated code review automated, not manual
Test CasesTESSY .tst, Robot Framework .robotSame branching as Application SW; test must cover every CRTest baseline linked to SW baseline in integration manifest
Shellautosar_baseline_create.sh
#!/bin/bash
# Create AUTOSAR project baseline at milestone
TAG="Release_EPS_v3.2_PDR_Gate"
DATE=$(date +%Y%m%d)

# Tag all repositories atomically
git -C repos/app_sw tag -a "${TAG}_${DATE}" -m "PDR Gate baseline"
git -C repos/bsw_arxml tag -a "${TAG}_${DATE}" -m "PDR Gate baseline"
git -C repos/test_cases tag -a "${TAG}_${DATE}" -m "PDR Gate baseline"

# Record baseline manifest
echo "{" > baselines/PDR_Gate_manifest.json
echo "  "baseline": "${TAG}_${DATE}"," >> baselines/PDR_Gate_manifest.json
echo "  "app_sw": "$(git -C repos/app_sw rev-parse HEAD)"," >> baselines/PDR_Gate_manifest.json
echo "  "bsw_arxml": "$(git -C repos/bsw_arxml rev-parse HEAD)"," >> baselines/PDR_Gate_manifest.json
echo "  "test_cases": "$(git -C repos/test_cases rev-parse HEAD)"" >> baselines/PDR_Gate_manifest.json
echo "}" >> baselines/PDR_Gate_manifest.json
echo "Baseline created: ${TAG}_${DATE}" 

SVVP Regression Scope Determination

CR TypeRegression ScopeRationale
Safety-impacting code changeFull regression (all unit + integration tests)Safety impact requires re-verification of all affected requirements
Non-safety code change (same module)Module tests + interface testsChanged module's unit tests + tests of modules that use its interface
BSW ARXML configuration changeBSW unit tests + integration testsARXML change may affect generated code; must re-verify generated interfaces
Documentation-only changeNo regressionBinary unchanged; no functional impact
Tool version upgradeFull regressionTool qualification must be re-validated for new version; output may differ

Summary

Configuration and change management are the audit processes most commonly failed at ASPICE Level 2 — assessors look for evidence that every change went through an impact analysis and CCB approval, and that the baseline is traceable from requirement to code to test. Multi-repository AUTOSAR projects need an integration manifest that ties together the exact commit hashes of application code, ARXML, and test cases used in any given baseline. Without this, an assessor cannot verify that the tested binary matches the reviewed code.

🔬 Deep Dive — Core Concepts Expanded

This section builds on the foundational concepts covered above with additional technical depth, edge cases, and configuration nuances that separate competent engineers from experts. When working on production ECU projects, the details covered here are the ones most commonly responsible for integration delays and late-phase defects.

Key principles to reinforce:

  • Configuration over coding: In AUTOSAR and automotive middleware environments, correctness is largely determined by ARXML configuration, not application code. A correctly implemented algorithm can produce wrong results due to a single misconfigured parameter.
  • Traceability as a first-class concern: Every configuration decision should be traceable to a requirement, safety goal, or architecture decision. Undocumented configuration choices are a common source of regression defects when ECUs are updated.
  • Cross-module dependencies: In tightly integrated automotive software stacks, changing one module's configuration often requires corresponding updates in dependent modules. Always perform a dependency impact analysis before submitting configuration changes.

🏭 How This Topic Appears in Production Projects

  • Project integration phase: The concepts covered in this lesson are most commonly encountered during ECU integration testing — when multiple software components from different teams are combined for the first time. Issues that were invisible in unit tests frequently surface at this stage.
  • Supplier/OEM interface: This is a topic that frequently appears in technical discussions between Tier-1 ECU suppliers and OEM system integrators. Engineers who can speak fluently about these details earn credibility and are often brought into critical design review meetings.
  • Automotive tool ecosystem: Vector CANoe/CANalyzer, dSPACE tools, and ETAS INCA are the standard tools used to validate and measure the correct behaviour of the systems described in this lesson. Familiarity with these tools alongside the conceptual knowledge dramatically accelerates debugging in real projects.

⚠️ Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them

  1. Assuming default configuration is correct: Automotive software tools ship with default configurations that are designed to compile and link, not to meet project-specific requirements. Every configuration parameter needs to be consciously set. 'It compiled' is not the same as 'it is correctly configured'.
  2. Skipping documentation of configuration rationale: In a 3-year ECU project with team turnover, undocumented configuration choices become tribal knowledge that disappears when engineers leave. Document why a parameter is set to a specific value, not just what it is set to.
  3. Testing only the happy path: Automotive ECUs must behave correctly under fault conditions, voltage variations, and communication errors. Always test the error handling paths as rigorously as the nominal operation. Many production escapes originate in untested error branches.
  4. Version mismatches between teams: In a multi-team project, the BSW team, SWC team, and system integration team may use different versions of the same ARXML file. Version management of all ARXML files in a shared repository is mandatory, not optional.

📊 Industry Note

Engineers who master both the theoretical concepts and the practical toolchain skills covered in this course are among the most sought-after professionals in the automotive software industry. The combination of AUTOSAR standards knowledge, safety engineering understanding, and hands-on configuration experience commands premium salaries at OEMs and Tier-1 suppliers globally.

← PreviousCMMI & Continuous ImprovementNext →Hands-On: Integrated Process Framework