[SystemSafety] Koopman replies to concerns over Toyota UA case

[clayton at veriloud.com]

> On Dec 30, 2017, at 6:35 AM, Derek M Jones <derek at knosof.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> McCabe Cyclomatic Complexity metric needs to be taken outside and shot.
> It is trivial to game this metric (e.g., split high value functions
> up into smaller functions), the metric goes down but the complexity is
> still there.

Agree, if the metric was the only one to go by.  However, there are many metrics (including ones that would catch your gaming example) that a reviewer would want to be aware of.  I think this was just used as an example for laypersons.

> Did anybody talk to the engineer who wrote the function for which
> "Throttle angle function complexity = 146”?

That is the big question, isn’t it?  AFAIK, there was little evidence during development of anyone asking that question, much less providing an answer.  I believe in the testimony it was stated there was little evidence of code reviews.

> All code can be tested and maintained.  

This is C so by definition the coded behavior intended on being tested might not actually be there.

>  Claiming
> that code is untestable or unmaintainable is a marketing statement, not
> engineering.
> 

Slides aside, I believe the engineering position was  "infeasible # of tests required…” or something like that.