Automotive-Specific Static Test Techniques
What the exam tests
Automotive static techniques: reviews and static analysis applied to requirements, architecture, models, and code, with emphasis on standards compliance, traceability, and safety.
Core rules
- Static testing does not execute the test object. In automotive projects it covers requirements reviews, architecture reviews, model reviews, code reviews, and tool-based static analysis.
- Automotive-specific checks include compliance with coding guidelines such as MISRA C and AUTOSAR C++14, model guidelines, complexity metrics such as cyclomatic complexity and nesting depth, and traceability to requirements and safety goals.
- Reviews range from informal walkthroughs to formal inspections. The more formal the review, the more evidence it produces; ISO 26262 and Automotive SPICE both value documented review records.
- Static analysis tools generate findings, but findings need triage. False positives must be dispositioned; suppressed rules need justification. A clean tool report is not proof of quality.
Worked example
A code review finds a MISRA C violation: a pointer cast that could break alignment. The reviewer checks the rule category (required or advisory), the safety context (ASIL B), and whether a deviation is permitted. Because the rule is required, the team must fix the code or obtain a documented, justified deviation approved by the safety manager. The review record, the finding, the decision, and the retest evidence are all traceable. Simply marking it “false positive” without justification would fail an Automotive SPICE or ISO 26262 assessment, because the reasoning and approval evidence are missing.
Traps
- Equating static analysis with dynamic unit testing.
- Ignoring advisory rules without documented deviation.
- Reviewing code but not requirements or models.
- Reporting tool findings without triage or traceability.