FEAT


ATURETURE


EMBEDDED TECHNOLOGY


Deciphering the code – LDRA and the software development lifecycle


Words by Editor, Christian Lynn W


ith over 40 years in t he market, L DRA is a software company,


serving customers t hat are developing safety - and/or security-critical software through software analy sis and verification, for high-assurance applications. How this relates to where LDRA stands today is the way that t he company is approaching lifecycle management – seeing a software project through it s development, and into its process of verification. A big part of this push comes in LDRA’s latest collaborations – the company has allied itself with Int land Software and Jira.


TP TE EAMING UP T he part nership with Intland is


intended to accelerate workflow for the development of critical software domains wit hin key indust ries: automotive, medical, aerospace and defence. With Intland’s codeBeamer Application


Lifecycle Management (AL M), customers can aut hor and develop requirement s, as well as providing traceability down into the software quality processes that LDR A involves itself with, helping t o ident ify and eliminate software flaws and vulnerabilit ies; ensuring complete t ransparency over the testing process, while augment ing its comprehensiveness, et c. By uniting Intland’s lifecy cle management with these services, customers can feel secure in their


software’s development schedule: money and t ime can be saved, whilst compliance wit h key regulat ions and standards is maintained (DO-17 8B/C, ISO 26262, IEC 62304, and more).


In contrast, Jira offers a more specific 12 MAY 2020 | ELECTRONICS


solution in the form of agile development and verificat ion of applications within the embedded sector. Using this, customers will identify key issues within the software and use the integrated L DR A t ool suite to t rack how these issues are resolved over its lifecycle: information at tained from t his is fed back into the Jira software. This is the predominant difference between Jira and Intland – Intland is requirement focused, whereas Jira hones in on the collaborative


development, clarifying who’s working on reciprocating what and what is the root cause of any anomalies t o begin with.


SET ETTING THE ST STA TANDARDS


However ambitious a collaboration can become, standards and legislation will always ground a project on some level. LDRA is keen to prove that it takes responsibility, particularly in the case of working with other companies like Intland and Jira, for the monitoring of the development cycle, verifying that the software being developed is compliant with relevant regulations and then feeding the results back into the original working environment, ultimately


y benefitting one’s


tracking of the overall process. It helps that LDRA participates in the extension of those hnology evolves to force


standards, as technology


the standard’s hand in changing with it : LDRA has recently


y partaken in the definition


of ISO/SAE 21434 and MISRA C: 2012, for example, as their experience in identifying flaws deals them the perfect hand to suggest ways of revising said standards. T his experience comes as a result of the relationship with t he customer. What’s t o stop a customer from questioning


the cost of time and materials that a regulation would impose upon t he development schedule of a piece of software? Often, t he customer will ask how to efficiently overcome these hurdles. LDRA, by sticking close t o the standards, understanding how they’re being reviewed, are at tempting to aid t hese customers in achieving t heir goals more proficiently. Consider a recent example: LDRA worked with General Motors (GM) to define variant s in t he aforement ioned MISRA coding standard, which support GM’s overall software development quality initiat ive, variants that are t hen passed onto t he supplier to ensure complete adherence over the entire course of the software’s journey. This marks a general note of at tention: understanding the variant s and the standard as a whole, so as to initiate the best course of action t hat will protect t he software and its developmental environment, right the way t hrough to its completion.


SET ETTING A NEW ST STA TANDAR D


In keeping with this ambition t o keep up with current standards, LDRA is supporting the recent revision of the ISO/SAE J3061 automotive cybersecurity standard, being re-fashioned and re- labelled as ISO/SAE J21434. Picking up from where the former left off, t he latt er is around a year away from final approval, promising more detail that will assist in supporting customers in their search for the best practice of software development and verification within t he increasingly connected vehicle. LDRA’s part to play in this is its use of the standard to accurately guide automot ive OEMs in t heir prevention of t he ongoing impression of anomalies within t heir software framework: the GM case study was a case in point. All in all, the progression of software development and its relevant legislation, like the latest ISO/SAE standard, demonstrates a desire to shorten the time-t o-market lifecycle of a piece of soft ware: LDRA situates itself in the midst of this process, with a hands-on approach that will enable customers to deliver an effective, verified piece of soft ware.


LDRA www.ldra.com T: +44 (0)151 649 9300 / ELECTRONICS


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46