Training Preparation -- Current Practices of 100 Attendees
| How do you test your code? | What is your target system? | What development tools do you use? | What is your code review practice? | How much time does it take to do an incremental build, load, and start running your code so you can start to test it? | What percentage of your development time is spent coding? | What percentage of your development time is spent testing? | What percentage of your development time is spent debugging? | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| System Testing post releases... | RTUs (Embedded Systems): - ARM uCs(Atmel & Siliconlabs) Sub GHz, - Small flash & ram - OpenRTOS & FatFS - GNU ARM compiler (arm-none-eabi-gcc) - Ethernet, serial, usb, zigbee interfaces - Dig In & Out, An In & Out, RTD - RTC, GPS | - Simply Studio (Silabs), Atmel Studio & Visual Studio. - JLINK - Wireshark - Putty (telnet) - HxD - Git & SVN | There is usually no time for code reviews. | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| I do not. | No specific target system. | QT for c++ | we trace the parts we are interested in. | 1-5 minutes | 70% | 0% | 30% |
Show |
| i dont | . | Qt | mayeb to trace the code all over | 11-30 seconds | 70 | 0 | 30 |
Show |
| Bespoke Python test harness over the serial port to exercise and validate the running code via a shell. Manual testing by an experience field engineer. | Embedded real-time control system for Oil/Gas sampling system. | Keil uVision. Linux | There is usually only myself working on the code. | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| For most of my personal projects I do not employee any unit testing currently. | I do not have a specific target system. | I use visual studio code for all python programming. I use gcc from the command line and visual studio code for c programming. | During my internship there was a CI/CD pipeline on our gitbucket server. Each time a push was made it would run all the tests and then you could review any code changes. The whole team reviewed all pushes to the repository at the end of each day. | 31-60 seconds | 6 | 1 | 3 |
Show |
| Experimentation constantly Much of the last iOS app I wrote was 90% UI and so it was constantly running in simulator. | IOS and Mac. Maybe Mac servers. Cloud servers. | Xcode What Unix tools I can remember Xcode simulator and instruments tool | I’m currently a team of one. Except on a side project. Pair programming with Lance Kind and TDD.Academy. | Under 10 seconds | 80 | 18 | 2 |
Show |
| I just test the lines of code I write (trying to do the more exhaustive possible set of conditions) and then I keep the code. I realize this produces, especially on a large software, a code that fails easily and it is difficult to maintain. | x86_64 Linux. Code I develop normally needs at least 4 cores to run in real-time (lot of calculations). | gcc, cmake and eclipse for C++ (now) | I don't understand the question. Maybe the what follow answers: usually the result of my code are data processing or model software whose results are used on our experiment and/or presented at a conference. I do not have a formal reviewing process. | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Run testcases as a whole project | FreeRTOS and Linux | Simplicity Studio Atmel Studio Visual Studio | N/A | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Unfortunately I am not writing much code at the moment. But I try to do my best to get the teams running with TDD and unit testing. | At the moment our target system are several micro services within an internal IT department. | Mostly IntelliJ for writing Code. GitLab for building and deploying the artefacts. | We mostly try to do Pair-Programming | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 20 | 60 |
Show |
| We have a suite of apps that can be deployed for simulation purposes on a Desktop PC as well as on our target system. | We develop radar detection systems fighter jet and test against that | Visual Studio, UltraEdit, BeyondCompare, MULTI | We don't have a consistent for of code review. Sometimes a senior member of our team will review my code, but usually all of our team contributes their changes to a collective baseline and the baseline is tested overall. | 1-5 minutes | 15 | 20 | 65 |
Show |
| Its mainly functional testing by putting the executable directly in the target board and use printf statements for debugging. | Its X86 board with stripped version of Linux ( Ubuntu 10.04). The Kernel is 2.29.6. It has the peripherals ( IOs), LAN Port, Zigbee port | Ubuntu 10.04 Eclipse (LUNA) for development For Microcontroller Keil5 and for ARM IAR | Peer to peer code review is done. Another developer does the code review and put comments in an excel sheet. Modification is done based on that and proper comments are placed in the same excel sheet. | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Hardware Prototype in loop, trial and error. | 8 bit and 32 bit low end Microcontroller based Instrument Control Systems. These in some cases work in tandem with an Embedded Linux based HMI written in C++/Qt. | STM32Cube, Viusal Studio Code, Visual Studio, Qt Creator, Vim | No review process in place. Static analysis tools - not in embedded. | Under 10 seconds | 10 | 30 | 60 |
Show |
| use gtest and gmock | Windows | Visual Studio | Having discussions with several peers. Check in when all agree with the change | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 10 | 50 |
Show |
| yes | Windows Low Level System Programming, Device Driver and System level code | C/C++,git,tc, Visual Studio | Code review needs to be reviewed and approved by 2 people. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| - Unit test using gtest (most of new code, some legacy) - Component tests e.g. client/server, COM client/component - Automated system tests using proprietary automation framework. Mostly regression, updated when a new feature changes some system aspect - Manual testing. Uncover more feature specific end-to-end test - Performance and stress testing using industry standard tests for enterprise e.g. LoginVSI for single server scalability | Windows on X86 | Microsoft visual studio (MSVC++), Trace tools (based on windows event trace logging system), build scripts using power shell, Windows debugger(WinDbg), Wireshark, git | Code reviews are done using review tools (Atlassian bitbucket), requiring at least two human approvals one of which is generally required from SME. An additional bot "reviews" for build success and automated smoke/sanity tests's success | 1-5 minutes | 35 | 30 | 35 |
Show |
| 1.Using the Gtest framework to write unit tests 2.Automation tests using python and the RobotFramework. | - | VSCode, Linux based debugging (gdb). | - | 30-60 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| 1.Using the Gtest framework to write unit tests 2.Automation tests using python and the RobotFramework. | - | VSCode, Linux based debugging (gdb). | - | 30-60 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| I spend most of my time testing by writing unit tests to verify the code under test is doing what I expect. Next I test the code in production to verify it's working as expected when integrated with the rest of the system. | Currently writing software that runs on multiple platforms. We have to make sure we can write as much cross platform code as possible so that the same code can be reused on all platforms. | Visual Studio, Visual Studio Code, Android Studio, Clang, CMake, Git, Windows Terminal, Docker, Windows Subsystem for Linux | Everyone on our domain team gets added to the code review and is free to comment any suggestions. Two developers need to approve the code review before it gets submitted into main branch. | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| We have unit tests, component tests and system test. Recently there are more emphasis on unit tests and we have been adding more unit tests. Unit tests runs as part of our CI/CD steps in jenkins during the build. Build is not successful if any one of the UT fails. | Windows, Linux, MacOS, HTML5/WebAssembly | VS, VSCode with various plugin. Windbg. | . | Under 10 seconds | 40 | 20 | 15 |
Show |
| Wherever possible and wherever there's an ROI, for all new code, we write unit tests and legacy code predominantly gets tested at system level | Target system is Windows 10 or 2016 VDA connecting with a client (windows, mac etc) and running along with multiple components in the middle interacting with each other at various times. | Visual Studio, Sublime | Looking at working as well as readability of code along with avoiding static analysis errors. | 30-60 minutes | 5 | 3 | 2 |
Show |
| mix of automation, unit test, component test and manually. | depends...it could be linux or windows, simple or complex deployment | VS Code, Visual studio, git bitbucket | Understand what problem this code change addressing and how. Flow of the code and data. Avoid or minimize use of global, local variables. Error handling, resource cleanup, return values and parameters to functions, their time etc. | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| GoogleTest - I have unit tests integrated in some parts of some projects, but an uphill battle to incorporate it int | Mostly XMOS MCUs or embedded Linux targets. | gcc, vim, CMake | Upsource - we have a language-agnostic set of acceptance criteria | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| There are a number of ways and it varies. New code is generally developed along with unit tests - these run as part of the build on the CI system. The unit tests either run the code natively on Windows/macOS or use a simulator for hardware specific functionality. There is an automated test harness using real hardware for end-to-end/integration tests. We have some great QA engineers who do manual testing and who develop automated tests. I do some manual testing while developing the code. I work with a legacy codebase and some of these testing methods have been relatively recently adopted - a lot of code is not under test... | USB, XMOS processor, audio, real-time. | VSCode, git, XMOS toolchain (including XGDB), xTag debugger, GoogleTest, lots of bash, Beagle USB analyser, Jenkins, Artifactory, YouTrack, make, cmake | Code reviews vary from meetings to discuss the approach taken to fix a particular issue to using UpSource or using merge requests in GitLab. They vary from project to project and the availability of appropriate reviewers. | 31-60 seconds | 20% | 20% | 50% |
Show |
| Run scripts through Jenkins each night. | N/A | Eclipse | Usually one on one meetings stepping through the code. Sometimes we have larger groups (around 5 people) stepping through each line. | 1-5 minutes | 4 | 2 | 4 |
Show |
| There is an existing unit test structure in the C code, but nothing implemented in Matlab. | My target is an autopilot. | Matlab, Visual Studio Code | They are good-natured and useful. Sometimes the points are pedantic but I would say they are useful more often than not. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 10 | 40 |
Show |
| Verifying behaviour using memory-watching while stepping through (with code running on the target), logging trace events, and functional system testing on the hardware. | STM32 Cortex-M devices (M0 through to M7). Starting to work with Espressif ESP32 devices (Xtensa core). | IAR Embedded Workbench, VS Code and CLion for IDE / text editing etc. GCC and IAR compilers. Segger J-Link, IAR I-Jet hardware debuggers. | We peer-review design documents as part of our process. Code reviews are initiated by the code author when they feel its needed (which happens for maybe 10-25% of the code). | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 10 | 50 |
Show |
| I haven't | I don't have one | Visual Studio Code, the Internet | n/a | Under 10 seconds | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Show |
| We test using manual device and system tests. | It's a small portable embedded IoT device built with a commercial RTOS on an ARM M0+ chip. It senses the world and reports data periodically to a server. Low-cost hardware is a primary project driver. | a tailored eclipse with gcc-arm-embedded toolchain, plus Msys2 and Gcc on dev box for unit test. GitLab Runner. | nada | 1-5 minutes | 25 | 25 | 50 |
Show |
| Self-constructed test wrappers. | Linux PCs, embedded Linux, bare metal | git, make, vi, ssh, llvm/lldb | Line-by-line, three or four participants, over audio chat. Alternatively done through GitLab. | 31-60 seconds | 40% | 20% | 40% |
Show |
| New to company, they use CPPUnit. Past company we tested per requirements on a hardware rig, then we had a validation/test group that did formal testing, using custom scripting / hardware to exercise the software. It was for aviation related equipment; so we had to have a validation group certify the code and package it up to get sent to the FAA for approval. Lots of custom tools used to test that stuff. | ARM Cortex M3 chip. | IAR compiler, Cygwin, CppUnit | Done using Jira and Bitbucket. | 11-30 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Using a custom embedded unit test harness, after the code is written (I'd like to change that!) | Embedded, size constraints | Eclipse | We've been having working meetings over video conferencing SW where the SME goes over the code with those less experienced and also makes changes. Also, we're looking at tools that integrate w/ our ALM tool for more traditional, reviews. | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 80 | 10 |
Show |
| CI testing using Jenkins. General unit tests for non hardware dependent code. Hardware unit tests running on hardware with PC commanding the tests using python scripts. Integration tests running on hardware as well. | Several embedded systems communicating and performing various different functions. It is a high reliability environment. | Visual Studio Code, Green Hills Software | We use Gitflow and require at least one other team member to review and approve pull requests before they are merged into the develop branch. | 11-30 seconds | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| this will vary based on what I am testing, but usually with our test suite. | mostly custom | Green Hills Vivado | code reviews are typically done with Git pull-requests reviewed by other team members | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| I almost (99%) always use XP style TDD sometimes use ATDD (depending on the project and tools available) | Mostly web, some XR devices and mobile | JetBrains IDEs mostly | Pairs > Code Reviews | Under 10 seconds | 45 | 55 | 0 |
Show |
| I know how my code should react given a certain input so i simply input the causes i already know the answer to and verify that the outputs received are what i expect | I typically deal with low power and resource embedded systems | So far i just use and IDE to assist with coding styles but other than that i do not use any other tools. (Compiling and other tools are used by senior members of my team.) | I haven't been a part of an official code review yet in my position. Any code reviews I did in school were more focused on getting code working than making it more efficient or better overall. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| current project has continuous testing; previously with unit test, integration, verification, validation; incremental development and integration | Zynq based with no OS and with Linux | Green Hills, Linux, Xilinx SDK, git, Jenkins, Visual Studio Code, Tera Term, Beyond Compare, PuTTY | informally review code before integrating into development branch; formal reviews later | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 30 | 10 |
Show |
| C/C++ homegrown unit tests | NA | Visual Studio | Peer reviews conducting via tool capture | 11-30 seconds | 5 | 5 | 1 |
Show |
| With CppUtest, automatically run on compile and every pull request. | Bare-metal ARM, Embedded Linux on ARM, x86_64 Linux desktop-class | Vim, CMake, CppUTest, Jenkins, Bitbucket, Fisheye/Crucible, VSCode | Uses Crucible or a Bitbucket PR, usually goes on for too long, or no activity | Under 10 seconds | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| by doing my own little small tests, pass and fail tests. | N/A | Momentics IDE Eclipse IDE BitBucket Github | i have participated in one code review session. it was as a group with 6 or 7 people. good discussions happened on how/ or why a piece of code was done | 31-60 seconds | 65 | 20 | 15 |
Show |
| Outside of work I try to use a unit test framework and I try and employ TDD. I have done the most TDD with Java and Junit, but try to use it when I can. Professionally I try to encourage our org to move in that direction more when possible but I am not directly coding very much as all there. | Professionally our organization see's a wide variety of targets from enterprise servers to low level micro controllers of various types. Outside work: various microcontrollers from 8-bit atmels to 32bit arm and regular x86 architecture, Cortex-M0 | tend towards lighter weight tools and command line, IDE wise I have used various including eclipse but trying vscode these days, jtag tools and compilers variants depending on specific controllers, mostly gcc based. | Professionally it can vary by project, generally a developer reviews offline with guidance on hat to review, some tooling such as bitbucket and to make them more tool based. ideally trying to apply more continuous integration based. | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Unit test, integration tests, system tests, stress tests | ARM 9 | GreenHills | code reviews on pull request | Under 10 seconds | 45 | 45 | 10 |
Show |
| I start debugging and testing by loading the code on the hardware, running it with CLI commands or instrumented code that exercises the new features. After that we use CppUTest for unit test and also lint the code. The unit tests and lint are run automatically when a feature branch is pushed to the git server. | Typically a fairly small MCU ranging from an 8051 to single core ARM with integrated peripherals as well as external SPI or IC2 devices. | IAR, Kiel, GNU toolchains. RTOS varies from bare metal to Yocto Linux with small or no RTOS being more common. | Two approvals are required before code can be merged. The reviews are typically very through. | Under 10 seconds | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| I start debugging and testing by loading the code on the hardware, running it with CLI commands or instrumented code that exercises the new features. After that we use CppUTest for unit test and also lint the code. The unit tests and lint are run automatically when a feature branch is pushed to the git server. | Typically a fairly small MCU ranging from an 8051 to single core ARM with integrated peripherals as well as external SPI or IC2 devices. | IAR, Kiel, GNU toolchains. RTOS varies from bare metal to Yocto Linux with small or no RTOS being more common. | Two approvals are required before code can be merged. The reviews are typically very through. | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Typically I start debugging and testing by loading the code on the hardware, running it with CLI commands or instrumented code that exercises the new features. After that we use CppUTest for unit test and also lint the code. The unit tests and lint are run automatically when a feature branch is pushed to the git server. | Typically a fairly small MCU ranging from an 8051 to single core ARM with integrated peripherals as well as external SPI or IC2 devices. | IAR, Kiel, GNU toolchains. RTOS varies from bare metal to Yocto Linux with small or no RTOS being more common. | Two approvals are required before code can be merged. The reviews are typically very through. | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Run unit tests and acceptance tests. | My main target systems are mobile printers. | VMare Player, PyCharm, QNX Momentics, Notepad++, TortoiseSVN | I haven't done much code reviews yet. My projects either have not been code intensive or have been developed in a pair programming manner that did not require a code review. | 1-5 minutes | 10% | 20% | 80% |
Show |
| Using Jest to perform unit testing | Embedded devices running Linux for streaming applications, commonly using C/C++ | Visual Studio Code, Bitbucket, Node.js, Jira, Azure IoT Hub | First I pull the code and try to compile it. If the compilation finished successfully, I review the implementation and look for border cases. | 1-5 minutes | 70% | 20% | 10% |
Show |
| using system and module level Testbenches | Communication systems, Wireless comms, Video and image processing, Cybersecurity | Vivado, Quartus, Keil, Visual studio, Workbench, ARM and TI tools as and when needed. | between 30 minutes to and hour. | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| My dat-to-day role involves software integration, I depend on integration tests. But I would like to learn Unit testing and I think that is the right way to do. | Linux based System on Chip. Our development is in Userspace Middleware. | GCC Python Behave Gherkin tests | We use gerrit | 30-60 minutes | 15 | 10 | 75 |
Show |
| We are using google test for unit testing and a proprietary system for integration testing | Set-top-box | I'm personally using VSCode | We use gerrit | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| unittesting using Cpputest/googletest and DMS testing which tests the whole code base. | Linux embedded system built on Set Top Boxes | Visual Studio | Code review using gerrit. | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 60 | 20 |
Show |
| Currently I use several test tracks | There are several different targets depending on the region and | Visual studio code, putty, build server. | Our code reviews are done via gerrit | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| unit tests, integration tests and some times fullstack | Set top box | We use a whole lot of custom tools mostly lunix based. Git for version control, gerrit for review, jenkins for dev-ops | use gerrit | Under 10 seconds | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| Test at module/component/multi-component levels. | Embedded linux | Coverity static analysis Vim Neoclide/coc (clang completion) vim ccls | We use gerrit - code from a team member is viewed by all, but only 1 person is required for sign-off. A bot also performs checks on the change. | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 55 | 35 |
Show |
| N/a | N/a | N/a | N/a | 1-5 minutes | N/a | N/a | N/a |
Show |
| I have just started to unit test. Very new. Previously manual. | Embedded processors | CppUTest, IAR | Mostly line by line, peer review. | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| functional tests | Gas detectors using STM-ARM cores and SiLabs 8051s | Eclipse based or IAR | Every member of the team reviews code and makes comments on compliance with the standard and business logic. | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| ATDD, TDD, Exploring manual test. | web app, ios-app | jet brain IDEs. | face2face every 1 hour | Under 10 seconds | 50 | 40 | 10 |
Show |
| Debug later | Embedded C running either bare metal or FreeRTOS on an MSP430 | IAR and CCS | Peer review | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Starting to use cpputest, but sometimes difficult. Our main way of testing is flashing to the target unit and running automated tests with real stimulus. It takes tens of minutes to hours to complete a test. | ST Micro, low power, arm | IAR | None | 1-5 minutes | 3 | 2 | 5 |
Show |
| Jenkins Continuous Integration, bench top and functionality testing | STM32L4+ microcontroller with various communications interfaces and SAM4L microcontroller RF system | IAR Embedded Workbench | Informal | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| On the fly, how it seems appropriate at the time. (hoping to improve this :) ) | Low power custom embedded board (variety of ARM Cortex-M micro controllers) | IAR EW, Ozone | Fairly informal, conference room, go function by function. | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| We build test in python and run the in Jenkins. Hard to cover all corner cases when building the test. Our CI systems is something like this: get code from repo, compile code, lint code, flash hardware with new code, run test then email results to developers. | I would rather not say. | IAR,QP, Git, and Vault | When software gets to a point we feel at a good state, we schedule a code review and invite our peers. We try to give people plenty of time review. We highlight pieces of code that we might have questions about ourselves so that others can help. | 1-5 minutes | 25 | 50 | 25 |
Show |
| Collection of unit test cases, tested on development boards. | ARM Cortex M3/4 microcontrollers, low-power environments, baremetal software | GCC, Cygwin, Eclipse, IAR | Code reviews aren't often used, getting started using Gitlab's review feature. | 31-60 seconds | 30% | 30% | 40% |
Show |
| end-to-end testing using CI | embedded C for micro-controllers only, cannot use C++ due to project restrictions (not even for unit testing) | IDE | GitLab Merge Requests or Fagan depending on project type | 31-60 seconds | 60 | 10 | 30 |
Show |
| using continuous integration | mcu | gcc, make, iar, | what are those? | 5-30 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| I write some short functional tests and try to capture the different use cases. | n/a | IAR, Eclipse. | n/a | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| in production | i have different targets | vi | does it compile? | 1-5 minutes | 1 | 1 | 98 |
Show |
| breakpoint debugging instrumentation test gpio Watch windows Memory windows | Cypress PSoC 5LP, PSoC 6, Microchip PIC18s, dsPics, SAME family, other processors over the years. | IDEs, Programmer/Debuggers, Logic Analyzers | seldom, working to incorporate into new designs | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| Before ceedling I'd often test code using print statements or toggle pins if testing on hardware. For timing critical testing I might throw test data into an array and print it all at the end. But that took a bit of extra work and system overhead. | I really like Notepad++ | My team only just formed and hammered out our code standard. We haven't had any code reviews yet, but plan to. | 11-30 seconds | 40% | 40% | 20% |
Show |
|
| Testing scripts which attach to the target via debug UART. These use python and Q_SPY | Cortex M0/M3/M4 and Xilinx Zynq | IAR/GCC SEGGER JTrace/Ozone for tracing | Depending on the speed of the project, code reviews and architecture meetings are held with varying frequency. | 11-30 seconds | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| Unit test, system-level test | ARM Cortex M4/A5/A9, TI MSP430, TI DSP | IAR, gcc | Sparse | 1-5 minutes | ? | ? | ? |
Show |
| Most important is to design code as separate testable modules. I can then write a test program that pumps data through the modules and checks the outputs. | ARM processor, battery powered, lots of sensors, radio communications. | IAR (maybe Green Hills also) | Project dependent. Some have none. Others have full up reviews in TeamForge + Gerrit. | 1-5 minutes | 70w/design | 20 | 10 |
Show |
| Manual unit tests; full unit testing over time, sometimes with the aid of continuous integration with the embedded systems in the loop | Various custom boards with mostly various ARM Cortex-M3/M4-based microcontrollers; FreeRTOS, bare metal, or QP, depending on project; mostly C, but sometimes C++ | IAR or GCC | Usually small sections get reviewed line-by-line | 11-30 seconds | 10% | 60% | 30% |
Show |
| unit tests, functional tests, performance tests | c++, python | xcode, visual studio, pycharm etc. | Each code change is reviewed by reviewers of that code area. | 31-60 seconds | 70 | 15 | 15 |
Show |
| I write tons of runtime asserts, step through the code, then manual verification. This is followed up with black box testing. | It's a cross platform (Windows, Mac, iOS, and Android) video editor. I work on the Win and Mac UI and a library that's shared across all platforms. | Visual Studio, Xcode | We use browser-based tool called Code Collaborator. It's not a good tool, and is downright hostile for reviews that end up having multiple revisions to any file. | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| manual app testing, Unit Testing | Rush Android application | Android Studio, Perforce, gradle | our reviews are fairly good | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 10 | 60 |
Show |
| blackbox | Win/Mac | VisualStudio, XCode | it's required | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 10 | 30 |
Show |
| Most testing is done by walkthroughs of the actual app (no formal testing infrastructure). Since my work has a strong focus on custom UI implementation, and less focus on data models or computational engines, unit tests have less immediate relevance, and I haven't yet seen a UI testing framework that was worth the hassle. | iOS 12 and 13, both compact and regular layout. I work on a cross platform app team (Mac/Win/Android/iOS); my work is almost exclusively in iOS, though I do deal with much code that is shared between the platforms. | Xcode, Perforce (soon to be git), macOS command line. Python scripts which generate the Xcode projects. Collaborator by SmartBear for code reviews. | All submission are reviewed by at least one other person, using Collaborator (by SmartBear). Check in comments must include the review URL. | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 10 | 60 |
Show |
| mainly use target PCBA build and use with debug interface | based on product features target is product PCBA with debug interface SWD | IRA and SEGGER STUDIO | Bitbucket code review with Pull request | 11-30 seconds | 30% | 40% | 30% |
Show |
| n/a | n/a | I used to use emacs, ant, Eclipse. I started learning IntelliJ. | n/a | 11-30 seconds | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Show |
| Functional testing. Write a bunch of code to do something, then test all the code as a whole. | Nordic nRF52 platforms ST platforms Atmel platforms Sensors, switches, relays 802.15.4 (BLE and 6Lo) | VS Code, IAR, Sublime | Peer reviews in Bitbucket | 31-60 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Regression/Unit | Contiki based firmware running on Nordic NRF52 built using Gcc for Commercial Lighting Control applications | IAR Visual Studio Segger Embedded Studio Segger j-link | Peer Review though BitBucket Pull Requests requiring at least 2-3 sign-off depending on the code base | 1-2 hours | 33 | 33 | 34 |
Show |
| We manual test the code with gdb and evaluate the quality of the data. For logic we use small catch2 based tests that only run on development laptops so not on the target. A build pipeline checks if the code compiles | It's a nrf52 with no uart | clang-format, gcc, sonarcloud (for static code analysis), vim, jlink, gdb, cppcheck | At least one person should have a look at the code and mark it as ready for merge in github. | 31-60 seconds | 2 | 3 | 5 |
Show |
| Before reading your book I was writing code, building the code, pushing the code on the target and verifying in debug mode that the code I just wrote was working as intended. After reading your book I started to use ceedling to unit test my code. So now I'm coding and testing my code on the computer and when a bunch of module are ready to work together I to the same as previously but with less step by step debugging and more global verification like verifying the outputs with oscilloscope or logic analyser. | I'm currently using STM32F3 and F4 microcontroller families. | Eclipse + gcc for arm + openocd. | We don't have code review as we are a small team. | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 10 | 40 |
Show |
| Quantum leaps QUTest, custom framework for automating on target tests, VectorCast and remaining adhoc/manual tests on legacy code | My team develops FW for medical feeding pumps - the project I work on has 2 embedded Stm32L4 MCUs | IAR, Visual Studio, Surround SCM/Helix for version control and requirement management, Jira/Confluence for planning/tracking, Quantum Leaps QM for state-machine modeling | Required. We do them every "story" - present company has a longer turn around than I am used to. | 1-5 minutes | 80 | 10 | 10 |
Show |
| Code reviews, system testing, pre- deployment testing (code then test) | ARM-M, MSP430 | IAR | The are painful, long, and don’t catch the bugs that matter the most. | 31-60 seconds | 20 | 10 | 70 |
Show |
| A large part of our code is tested manually as part or a larger system. We're starting to adapt unit testing and a small portion of our code is unit tested. | Embedded systems. | Gcc, PC simulators, VS code. | Code reviews are done before every patch is submitted. A developer isn't allowed to review their own patches. | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| We mainly use manual system level testing. We've recently started developing automated unit tests using the Google test suite. | Fitness devices. | vscode, jenkins | Each commit is reviewed by the team before it can be pushed to any remote branch. | 31-60 seconds | 4 | 2 | 4 |
Show |
| Using CTest and CI via github, bitbucket, travis, gitlab. Manual validation. | Typically ARM microcontrollers, Atmel AVR, PIC Microship, and others, usually bare metal, sometimes with RTOS. Some target systems are Linux or embedded Linux. Some target systems are Windows PC. | GCC, Make, IAR, Rowley Crossworks, Segger Embedded Studio, Atmel Studio, STM32 Cube IDE, MPLab X, and others. | Pull request or merge request online via bitbucket (or gitlab or github). Typically check for adhering to coding standard, and adhering to high-cohesion low-couple architecture for code placement. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Manual testing mostly. | Most target systems are embedded STM32 based devices although it varies from project to project. Mostly Arm Cortex-M processors. | A wide range. IAR, KEIL, STM32CubeIDE as the primary toolchains. | It varies project to project based on the client I am working with. I often have a colleague review code that I write if possible. Many times I'm reviewing client and other developers code. | 31-60 seconds | 75 | 10 | 15 |
Show |
| I don't. | ARM & AVR uCs | sublime, GCC, AVRDude, | Weekly, peers outside the company, using zoom. | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| combination of printf(...), and running on target and seeing if things break. | Some 32-bit micros, a QNX 4.25 based RTOS system, and hopefully soon, a more modern custom linux image. | Micro development in NXP Studio (Eclipse-based, uses gcc). QNX development with VS Code IDE, and on-board Watcom 10.6 C/C++ compiler/debugger. | Boss and I do high-level structure overview, and then go through more thoroughly as we deem necessary. | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 5 | 35 |
Show |
| Unit tests where possible, running off target. I've tried using drivers, and test doubles, but found it difficult in C. | I'm not normally doing embedded outside of hobby projects. Most of the embedded programming I've done is AVR ATMega based using the gcc-avr toolchain. I've tinkered a bit with STM32. | In this context, gcc CLion, CMake. | Ad hoc. | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| When working from a spec, often there is an official test vector set that can be used for validation. Sometimes there is an alternative implementation for a different piece of hardware that can be used for reference. If neither is the case, | Various hardware security modules (HSM's) programmed in C or C++. We develop code in MSVS, but each target has its own proprietary C compiler, usually building in a Linux Docker image. Compiled binaries are then hand-loaded onto the target platform. | MSVS IntelliJ | In my opinion, code review is more about sharing knowledge than anything else. You can have great discussions about architecture and style, but it is uncommon for bugs to be found in the review process. | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| Apllication code: Simple intergration test, but nothing automated. In the present team we are 3 embedded developers and 4 PC application developers. Two testers, one manager, a PO and a SW project manager Platform code: cppunit test of some parts of the code base | Embedded system for Food analysis NXP LPC4357 with multiple modules internal CAN communication 480*800 touch display SQLite database Data upload to a Foss Cloud solution | Green Hills Multi 7.1.6 compiler and debugger Visaul Studio 2017 as IDE and simulator Ues "Rant" for building | All code is reviewed, since last summer. The current project has run since late 2017 :-/ We use Azure Devops and I am quite happy with the this | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| Manual | Mostly ARM | ATMEL Studio, Keil, MATLAB and Simulink | The design is reviewed with the software architect. I use sonarCube to verify the code | 31-60 seconds | 3/10 | 2/10 | 5/10 |
Show |
| Manually updating impute values for a function and compare the output values with the expected ones. | Confidential | Eclipse, Keil, IAR | Code review by senior developers | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| I incrementally add functionality to the target code base, then submit customer programming to the code under development | Printers big and small | momentics and GNU compiler chain | They're fair but until one has been through a couple it's really hard to do much more than try to write code like everyone else wrote something similar | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 20 | 60 |
Show |
| The tests are partly unit tests and partly functional tests. Unit tests are run off-target. Functional tests on target. Test of algorithmic code and code integrating with the libraries offered by the vendor is tested on target. This approach has been chosen to ensure that differences in endianness, size of basic data types etc are sufficiently covered by tests. | The target systems are based on a number of different architectures. In general, debugging support is lacking - commonly reduced to output only when execution of the code returns 'nicely'. | Mainly Microsoft Visual Studio, gcc & IntelliJ | Code is reviewed by a colleague - sometimes by the colleague sole - othertimes as show-and-tell seances. | 5-30 minutes | 3/10 | 3/10 | 2/10 |
Show |
| * TDD unit testing for small well defined functionality. * Using a software implementation of the hardware abstraction layer. | Hardware Security Modules of various brands and different CPU architectures with down to 1MB RAM. The same code has to work on all platforms, therefore all code is written in C. | Visual Studio, IntelliJ IDEA | Code reviews should make sure: * The intended task has been done and that nothing is missing * Relevant tests are present * The code is: - Secure and follows guidelines - Easy to understand - In the right place - Better than it was before | 5-30 minutes | 70% | 20% | 10% |
Show |
Make this into a word cloud
Select text below (triple click), copy, then try one of these tag cloud generatorsjasondavies word cloud generator - colorful
tagcrowd - lets you show counts