Project Name / Cr No CR17079

Object ID
Object Name SE-MM-FR-008 / CBUG / CR17079 / Version 7.0
Object Description ZMM_REP_RFQ_AUTO_MAIL
Request Number in DS6K916887
Sequence
Checks Sr. No. Check Points
DOCUMENTS CHECK 1 Availability of Reviewed Functional Specification.
2 Version contorl maintained in Functional Specification
3 Availability of Reviewed Technical Specification.
4 Version contorl maintained in Technical Specification

NAMING CONVENTIONS 5 Is the program name consistent with Naming convention standard?
AND DECLARATIONS 6 Are names of internal tables, variables, include, structure and subroutines etc checked for
adherence to naming convention standard?
7 Comments are included after each field (tables, fields of internal tables, constants, variables,
etc.) to describe the meaning or purpose of the field
8 TYPE verb is used while declaring the fields whenever feasible?
9 Is keyword Constant used for non-modifiable declarations?

PROGRAM STRUCTURE 10 Is PRETTY PRINTER used for formatting the code?

11 Are the events that appear in the program are in the order in which they are generally
executed?
12 Does program contain standard header pattern for modification log and documentation?

PROGRAM LOGIC 13 Is the system return code SY-SUBRC checked after every data access statement?
14 Are only required columns used instead of using SELECT *?
15 Has database SELECT for a particular database table been restricted to only once in
the program wherever possible?
16 Is Select single statement being followed by primary key in where clause.

17 Is Select statement being followed by proper index in where clause.

18 Is Select statement fields sequence is same as database tables field sequence.
19 GROUP BY, ORDER BY, and DISTINCT operations On SELECT statements are avoided
whenever possible.
20 Does every Select statement is being followed by comments on index used? (e.g.
Primary Index Used, Secondary index used(Index ID).) (Can use ST12 analysis to find
actual index used.)
21 No Hardocoded Selects , All the changeable and necessary HardCoded values must be part
of Custom Table
22 Is clearing of work areas, Fields symbols, internal tables done, wherever required?

23 Case statements use 'when others.'

24 Has the code been checked for the condition of division by zero?

INTERFACES / 25 Are Input/ Output file names correct (to be as per the Technical Specification)?
CONVERSIONS 26 Is each file being opened separately?(GUI_UPLOAD)
27 Are Control Report and Error log Report generated (if specified) for Interface Programs?

INTERNAL TABLES 28 Field Symbol has been used instead of work area wherever required?
29 Have Fields-symbols been assigned before using?
30 Have Fields-symbols been unassigned after using?
31 Is LOOP … WHERE used instead of using LOOP and then CHECK?
32 To select a particular row from internal table use 'Read table .... with key' instead of 'loop at
table where ..'
 33 Has an internal table been SORTED before doing a BINARY SEARCH on it?
(Field sequece should be same in both READ and SORT statements)
34 Sort fields on the SORT statement should not be left as default (e.g., Use SORT ITAB BY
FLD1 instead of SORT ITAB).
35 All variants and fields should be explicitly specified when you use MODIFY statement to
modify the internal table (e.g., you should use MODIFY itab….TRANSPORTING fl f2…
WHERE…instead of MODIFY itab).
36 When appending itabl to itab2, use APPEND LINES OF itabl TO itab2 instead of APPEND
itab1 TO itab2.

37 Was the internal table sorted before using DELETE ADJACENT DUPLICATES?

38 When deleting a record from an internal table, use DELETE ITAB WHERE condition
instead of using LOOP AT <itab> / CHECK / DELETE ITAB
39 Has appropriate freeing of memory for Database/Internal table work areas been done?

40 Does the code have been checked for minimal use of Nested Selects and Nested Looping?

41 UPDATE statements only contain the columns whose values have changed.

INPUT VALIDATIONS 42 Are Select-options & Parameters validated?

43 Is proper search help provided for the parameters and select options?
44 Are Parameters and Select options texts in proper case?

REPORT OUTPUT 45 In ALV Output all the application toolbar button must confirm for proper functionality (E.g.
Sorting, Downloading, Summation, Filtration, etc.)
46 Is Back button working properly for ALV output
47 While using function module REUSE_ALV_GRID_DISPLAY importing parameter should
always be ‘A’.
ENHANCEMENT / SAP 48 Has the project been created and activated?
MODIFICATIONS 49 Has the user exit been put in a separate include program? And Check IF FOUND is written
or not
50 Has the check been made that the enhancement shall not affect other areas?
51 Has purpose of change is mentioned in enhancement?

FUNCTION MODULES 52 Are Function modules and related logic included in separate Function Group, wherever
necessary?
53 Is SY-SUBRC checked after each call to a function module?
54 The exceptions of the Function Module should not be deleted but trapped with appropriate
messages
ERROR HANDLING 55 Is message Class defined in the PROGRAM / REPORT statement?
56 Is appropriate message class used?
57 The messages used should be complete and meaningful, and not broad level. Please use ‘&’
for Document Nos., Plant Codes, Material Numbers etc. when error occurs at specific value.

CODE ALIGNMENT, 58 Are Internal Comments aligned?

SPACING AND 59 Do blank lines separate logically different coding blocks?
FORMATTING
60 Is the format for SQL statements correct?

MODIFICATIONS & 61 The program package history correctly informs and consists of at least the name, the date,
CORRECTIONS the author and the change(s) made
62 Has dead code been removed from the program?
63 Have code changes been marked with inline comment?

EXTENDED CHECK AND 64 Is extended program check completed and all errors/warnings removed?
CLEAN UP 65 Is source code inspector completed and all errors/warnings removed?
EXTENDED CHECK AND
CLEAN UP
66 Have following been removed:
a. Unused tables from TABLES statement
b. Unused variables
c. Unused text elements
d. Code segments which do nothing
e. Commented out parts of the code

67 Have ABAP code optimization guidelines been followed?

68 Is SELECT statements followed the proper primary index and secondary index? (If
applicable, attach the document)
TRANSPORT REQUEST 69 Has the correct Development Class been assigned to the object?
AND DEVELOPMENT 70 Have all the components been saved under the same Transport Request number?
CLASS
71 Does the Program Header Documentation contain the correct Transport Request No.?

72 All hard coded breakpoint statements have been removed before production transport.

73 Do all component in the request have been activated.

TEST PLAN CHECK 74 All input validation is tested.

75 Test data and Expected Results are present.

TECHNICAL TEST CHECK 76 Test plan was reviewed.

77 Each test was executed.
78 Expected Result matched with Actual Result. No errors were found.
PERFORMANCE CHECK 79 Is there a check whether the driver internal table is empty for each Select Query that
POINTS has ‘For All Entries In ...’ clause?

80 Check to remove duplicates from the driver internal table before a “Select ... For All Entries
In..”, but this should be done only if there are chances of considerable duplicate records.

SECURITY STANDARDS 81 A transaction code has been assigned to the main program.

Role Levels Followed

Not Followed
Not Applicable

Defect No.* Remarks

Defect Found
Self Reviewer Bhupendra Kumar
Evaluated On 30.07.2019
Peer Reviewer Sunil Rana
Evaluated On 01.08.2019 First Level Review on Development objects
Type of changes Self Review
CR
(CR / SR) Count
Self Review Peer Review Comments Followed 37
Followed Followed Not Followed 0
Followed Followed Not Applicable 44
Followed Followed Percentage
Followed Followed Object Status Approved
Followed Followed
Followed Followed

Followed Followed
Second Level Review on Development objects
Followed Followed Peer Review Count
Followed Followed Followed 37
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Followed 0
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 44
Followed Followed Percentage
Followed Followed Object Status Approved
Followed Followed
Followed Followed

Not Applicable Not Applicable Rejected Reason:

Followed Followed
Followed Followed
Not Applicable Not Applicable

Followed Followed

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Followed Followed

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable
Not Applicable Not Applicable
50 44
Followed Followed
40 37
Followed Followed
30
20
10
0
0
Followed Not Followed Not Applicable
 50 44
40 37
30
Not Applicable Not Applicable 20
10
Not Applicable Not Applicable 0
0
Not Applicable Not Applicable Followed Not Followed Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Followed Followed

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Followed Followed
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable
Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Followed Followed
Not Applicable Not Applicable

Followed Followed
Followed Followed
Followed Followed
Followed Followed

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Followed Followed
Followed Followed
Not Applicable Not Applicable
 Followed Followed

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Followed Followed

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable
Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Followed Followed
Followed Followed
Followed Followed
Followed Followed
Followed Followed
Followed Followed
Followed Followed

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable

2
0
2

Defect Severity Date when resolved

w on Development objects

Points
74
0
88
100
Approved

view on Development objects

Points
74
0
88
100
Approved

44

0
Not Followed Not Applicable
 44

0
Not Followed Not Applicable