Training Preparation -- Current Practices of 1064 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? | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consequences of bugs are low because software is for internal use by a small group. Testing is limited. I led MeterMate group years ago, and we did peer reviews of ALL code changes, and some white box testing, but nothing too structured. | Generally Windows applications, but interested in meter firmware | Visual Studio | Author of change sits down with printout and explains changes to peer reviewer line by line. | 31-60 seconds | 75% | 10% | 15% |
Show |
| Run new code with emulator, check variables using debugger to make sure the values are as expected. | currently Atmel SAM4C | IAR Workbench, Visual Studio, GNU Tool Chain | Very useful. | 1-5 minutes | 33.3% | 33.3% | 33.3% |
Show |
| X | z | X | Y | Under 10 seconds | 10 | 10 | 10 |
Show |
| Debuger Single Step , IO Traffic Monitoring, Protocol Simulators, Stress/Avalanche Tests, Sometimes built PC apps for testing, Simulated external interaces, Code instrumentation, Display Special characters on LCD panel, Change LED colors, Electronic Signal Injection/Monitoring, Debug Prints | Smart Meters, Substation Gateways, Data Concentrators | IAR, GCC/G++ | Supported both Formal and Informal. Tend to be overly defensive | 31-60 seconds | 25 | 35 | 40 |
Show |
| Not familiar with them at this company, yet. | Not familiar yet. | Visual Studio, Vim, Komodo, | Not familiar yet | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| System and unit test. Unit testing is not automated and system test is about 60% automated. | Cortex M4, Renesas Rx | IAR, RVDS, Coverity, etc. | We use code collaborator but not enforced | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Enulation | NEC legacy controllers | IAR-NEC | They need work | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| code a little, test a little | company made, last one had a Renesas, and before that Atmel ARM, | IAR IDE, Cygwin, Windows | We try to get some in officially, most are done unofficially if at all. | 31-60 seconds | 20 | 20 | 60 |
Show |
| Debugger. Some test code that runs on the target and typically gets discarded once everything passes. | Dual core, Cortex M4 micro controller. 128K RAM, 1M of flash. NEC V850 micro. 8K RAM, 256K flash. | IAR compiler, Visual SlickEdit. | Weak. Review diffs between old and new with a couple of programmers. | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Debugger, step through code | 80515, H8, MSP430, V850, Rx, ARM | Vendor, IAR | SmartBear Code Collaborator online reviews | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| not doing development currently | Renasas V850 32-bit RISC micro | not doing development currently | they are required as part of our engineering process, but we do not have a documented process. | 1-5 minutes | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Show |
| Debugger | Windows 7 | Visual Studio 2010 | None at this time | 5-30 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Self Test | ARM | IAR | Impromptu | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| EVT/DVT and some experimentation with VectorCast harness. Did not get to step of actually running devices through full harness to determine code coverage. | Card and Label printing devices with various hardware | CCS, Altera Tools, SVN, SBM, GNU | occasional peer review | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| C++: I mainly debug or use print statements. Java: TDD; I write tests first. | QNX, desktop applications | Eclipse, IntelliJ, PyCharm | I do not have formal code reviews | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 10 | 50 |
Show |
| on the machine | card and label printer | Altera, QNX | peer review | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 50 | 40 |
Show |
| By running unit tests and acceptance tests | RTOS based QNX operating system | QNX Momentics, Eclipse | We do pair programming. So one developer do coding and another developer review code at a same time. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| on the target hardware | mobile and card printers using FreeScale/QNX and Altera Nios II/uCOS respectively | Momentix, Altera IDE | Previous group didn't have them, new group seems to do reviews and/or pair programming | 5-30 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Mostly with acceptance tests written in Python or a home-grown acceptance test tool. Some build scripts are just run with a debug flag and the output validated. | Label/receipt printer that supports various printing languages and communication protocols. | QNX/GCC toolchain + Perl deployment scripts to a printer/VM | Non-existent | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 10 | 30 |
Show |
| Force all paths to execute. | Thermal printers | VMware, SVM, SBM, Coverity | Informal with peers | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 60 | 20 |
Show |
| Unittests are put together after functionality is implemented and these tests are run before committing code and upon every build. | Printer | Momentics, Pycharm | Rare | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| Unit and acceptance testing, and empirical tests | QNX | Eclipse, PyCharm, GCC/GDB, Clang, etc. | We don't generally do code reviews; mostly pair programming. | 31-60 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Unit tests, auto-regression test, manual test | Arm-based freescale custom boards | lint, coverity, gcc | N/A. Pair programming | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| sfsdf | fsdfsd | sfdsf | sfsd | 5-30 minutes | 11 | 11 | 11 |
Show |
| Add test code as needed to test various features. A lot of runtime testing, print various cards with different configurations. | Embedded processor in printer. | Altera tools, Code Composer Studio, emulator, logic analyzer, protocol analyzer | periodic with team, maybe a hour. | 31-60 seconds | 70 | 20 | 10 |
Show |
| UTs, acceptance tests, etc | QNX ARM | Eclipse | Pair prog and code reviewed | 1-5 minutes | 5 | 4 | 2 |
Show |
| we have simulation system to test our PLC codes , | n.a. | PLC software ( step 7 ,controllogix5000 etc.) | n.a. | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| User testing Sample input and output | - | Visual Studio, Eclipse | Never did before | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 10 | 60 |
Show |
| I usually test individual classes using test cases before integrating them in the full program. I have never used a proper test framework, though. Mostly it's by calling the class under test though a small test program and checking that the response is as expected after giving it some inputs. | Embedded systems in Seismic technology. Sometimes running linux, other times barebone applications. | TI's code composer studio, Keil, etc. | Yet to be determined | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Write code, then, write test cases to test for the good and bad cases. | arm | CCS | Fagan | 5-30 minutes | 35 | 35 | 30 |
Show |
| Unit Test followed by Integration and feature tests. | Arm9 and Freon processor | FlatFile, RoseRT | We review with other staffs | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Using Unit Test or flash it into the product to test it. | Real Time Embedded System | IBM rational rose, clearcase, TestRT, Ultraedit, Notepad++ | it's time consuming but it's somehow effective | 30-60 minutes | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| do some ut when writing code on target test after code done | radio | scripts, sourceinsight | heavey | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 60 | 10 |
Show |
| Bundle several highly related source files together and test them together | Arm9 (ti omap 1710) | VC, RoseRT, TestRT, source insight | Team was following fagon inspection for reviewing code. Now team is trying to find lightweight solution | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| Test RT | Ergo | CPPUTEST | Fagan Inspection | 30-60 minutes | 40% | 40% | 20% |
Show |
| Perform compilation, and test the code on product. | Embedded | Rose Realtime, CodeComposer Studio | Fagan code review | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| CPPUTest, TestRT, black box test, sanity test | ARM | RoseRT and CCS | Fagan | 30-60 minutes | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| Hard coded some values to inject into the function to see whether the result match with expected result. Test the overall feature whether it behave like what it should be. | Radio Protocol | Source Insight, Rose RT | FTR | 5-30 minutes | 50% | 20% | 30% |
Show |
| I test it by using the real tool. | ARM 7 | Multi-6 | Analyze errors, look into the code and debug. | 5-30 minutes | 30% | 30% | 40% |
Show |
| UT, off target IT and on target IT. | a radio basing on dual core chip. | RoseRT | formal review with process and tools supports. | 30-60 minutes | 40% | 30% | 30% |
Show |
| Microsoft UnitTest and GUI test under the target system | .NET and Siemens PLC | Microsoft Visual Studio 2012 and Siemens SIMIT | I review my onw code. | 11-30 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Defining test cases and see whether the output is as expected. Some of my colleagues use Google Mock | Motorola LMR radio | Air Tracer (similar to Wireshark), standard editing tools | Formal Technical Reviews | 1 day or more | 10 | 20 | 70 |
Show |
| UT(Function test/class test), Scenario test(task level test, off target test); IT(on target test); feature test; expert test. | Embedded system | Rational tools, Visual studio, ultraedit | Invite the right person is important. | 5-30 minutes | 30% | 50% | 20% |
Show |
| In target test. | Embedded system | Ultraedit , visual studio | Fagan inspection | 5-30 minutes | 50% | 30% | 20% |
Show |
| on target | freon | rational rose real time, ccs | fagan | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| on target test | ARM9 processor with RTOS | Texas Instrument Code Composer Studio | Motorola Process | 30-60 minutes | 30% | 50% | 20% |
Show |
| CppUTest, black box testing on target | 2 way radios | notepad++ | fagan inspection | 5-30 minutes | 30% | 20% | 50% |
Show |
| Unit Test, White-Box Testing and Black-Box Testing on the hardware | ARM9 | Rational Rose Real Time, Ultra Edit tool | Fagan Inspection | 5-30 minutes | 50% | 30% | 20% |
Show |
| cpputest | arm | ccs | - | 5-30 minutes | 60 | 10 | 30 |
Show |
| UT IT | embedded C legacy code | source insight | I think it's OK | 30-60 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| integration test, black box test, no unit test. | two-way radio | Rose RealTime/UltraEdit | we have formal review process | 5-30 minutes | 50% | 30% | 20% |
Show |
| CXX test, Physical unit test | DSP TI BIOS, ARM | eclipse | Fagan and formal revies | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Partially | Embedded ARM system | Eclipse, GNU GCC toolchain, vim, Notepad++ | Formal fagan reviews | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Compile switch enables a special test mode that runs on simulated input | Embedded systems | MATLAB, Keil, Eclipse | small team. no review | 31-60 seconds | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Show |
| Simulator, running case | None | STEP 7 | none | 5-30 minutes | 10 | 60 | 30 |
Show |
| None | ASIC with no OS | depends | basically looking for memory leak and coding convention | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| Functionally. | Test System for Isometrix product | Microsoft Visual Studios 2010 | Weak | 11-30 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| compile in CVI | CVI | CVI | - | 31-60 seconds | - | 1 hr | 3hr |
Show |
| Using CCStudio debugger. I used test benches while working on FPGAs | TMS320F2812 | CCStudio. Keil | NA | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| Unit tests, deployment on hardware, regression test on hardware | TI TMS320F2812 | CCS, Eclipse | Reviews are mainly using version control system, locally, within the project team, often more formal reviews are held which include members from other teams and some subject matter experts | 1-5 minutes | 20% | 40% | 40% |
Show |
| cpputest, eclipse, mingw, sometimes Jenkins CI | FPGAs, ARMs, DSP | Eclipse, Visual Studio, Multi, VisualDSP++ | relatively non existent | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 50 | 10 |
Show |
| write my own test cases, dont use any formal test procedure | firmware for TI processors for high temperature high pressure high reliability safety critical systems. | Code composer studio, labwindows//CVI | nothing in particular | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| In the Debug Environment | MSP430 | Code Composer | Variable name is not defined to understand the use of it | 30-60 minutes | 6hrs | 18 hrs | 12 hrs |
Show |
| not applicable | str911faw42 - arm 9 | Ride 7 | not had any yet | 11-30 seconds | 60 | 10 | 30 |
Show |
| Live, on the target | TI 28335, MSP430 | CCS6 | Had none so far | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| You kidding! There are no unit tests written here. Development tests yes, but these get forgotten after rework etc. | improve embeded skills | Eclipse, and adb logcat | Gerrits, but most people +1 | 5-30 minutes | 40% | 30% | 30% |
Show |
| functional and unit testing only | ARM based mobile phones. | eclipse, klockwork, lint, Gdebug, | gerrits | 2-4 hours | 30 | 10 | 60 |
Show |
| 1) By putting logs in code. 2) Placing breakpoints if development environment supports it. | QCOM MSM platforms. | Android , Eclipse, MS visual studio , VI , git , perforce , SVN etc. | my codes are reviewed by my team mates and I get comments as per the team's understanding . They are generally related to the part of the code which are not very much clear to us. | 11-30 seconds | 60 | 30 | 10 |
Show |
| On actual Target | ARM based Mobile Devices | VS | We have aumated system where each change in the code should be reviewd by other devlopers before the changes can go in. | 30-60 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| 1st stage: compiles correctly 2nd stage: code review 3rd stage: blackbox testing on target device | Android / Linux | Eclipse, vi | We use gerrit to review code of peers in the final stage of development, i.e. shortly before release. | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| Manual Testing | Windows/Android | Visual Studio/Eclipse | Good | 11-30 seconds | 65 | 25 | 10 |
Show |
| Visual Studio Simulator and on real target | CortexM0 | Visual Studio, SlickEdit, RVDS | Organised by developer via Code Collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 20 | 60 |
Show |
| Native g-test, sample applications | Mobile device | Develop in text editors with android compilers | Consistent | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 10 | 60 |
Show |
| Using logs | NFC native lib for android | Eclipse, VS | - | 1-5 minutes | 10% | 30% | 60% |
Show |
| To the requirements | Equipment on a bus used mainly for fleet tracking | IDE | Semi-formal | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| write my own test function and run against the code to be tested | ARM | Source Insight | NA | 11-30 seconds | 20 | 20 | 60 |
Show |
| Manually creating conditions to test on bench, building, loading to drive, running against appropriate test suite tests. | A multi-processor SSD drive, or a simulator in Linux. | SlickEdit, GIT, SVN, vim, ARM compiler | Reviewed in CodeCollaborator by my team members and appropriate other teams | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| unit testing, regression testing | SSD | NA | NA | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Mostly unit tests. | Embedded SSD drive. | At this job, Sublime Text mostly, vim in a pinch. | They're generally ok, but, sometimes they are huge, making the code review ineffective because it is hard to digest all of the information. | 11-30 seconds | 45% | 45% | 10% |
Show |
| I am just getting started at this company, but so far I am test-driving an implementation of telemetry encoding and decoding using Python, which I then intend to further test-drive in C and C++. I am looking for guidance on how to test-drive very low level code, such as direct hardware interface. | We work with PIC and Cortex-M series processors at the moment | Leaning toward using open source whenever possible, also ARM-MDK, MPLAB X | Non-existent at this point | 31-60 seconds | 80 | 10 | 10 |
Show |
| DO-178B's Requirements Based Tests. A lot of manual test procedures. Automated tests are generally not 'for credit' tests. Trying to enforce Vertical Slice user story "requirements -> code -> test" in a sprint. Traditionally, we have followed the "V" method, where test procedures come long after 'design and code' are done. Little to no automated test procedures. | PowerPC based embedded computing system. | Eclipse as an IDE. PCLint for static code analysis. | Informal every sprint (static code analysis, Subject Matter Expert review). Formal review (Safety , Certification, Software Quality, etc... every release) | 30-60 minutes | 20 | 70 | 10 |
Show |
| Work on functional pieces and with some combination of testing with oscilloscope, in circuit debuggers, printfs, and functionality/interface tests for the specific application. | dspic, arm cortex | mplab, keil | I'v never had one. | Under 10 seconds | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Simulator, Functional on FPGA and Live Product | 5 ARM core customer SSD controller | ARM, GCC, Arium ICE | Formal, Required, CodeCollaborator | 1-5 minutes | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Show |
| We usually test our code with inhouse scripts and 3rd party scripts and tools. | SATA SSD, ASIC based on ARM | source insight editor, realview compiler and debugger, Lecroty SATA analyser, MS Visual studio, etc. | reviews include self review, peer review, and walk through. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Manual testing | Medical infusion pump | Visual Studio | I perform code reviews with a checklist and extensive knowledge base | 11-30 seconds | 70 | 20 | 10 |
Show |
| firmware verification | medical drug delivery system | eclipse | 3 people, 1 recorder. Code reviewed at a meeting, prereviewed before meeting. | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 25 | 55 |
Show |
| yes | TI | Code Warrior | OK | 5-30 minutes | 10 | 10 | 10 |
Show |
| For hardware tested , we write stubs and for application stuff , we use google test frame. | STM32 , Arm processor | IAR workbench | Static tool analysis and peer reviews | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| Conbination of automated unit tests (generally developed after code implementation) and manual tests | CODESYS | CODESYS, Visual studio | Some are good, some not so good (depends upon the complexity of the code being reviewed) | 1-5 minutes | 65 | 25 | 10 (including debugging test code) |
Show |
| Mainly manual testing with some automated googletests | Currentl ARM based | IAR EWB | Performed by a peer | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| unit tests, some TDD | STM32Fxxx, ARM CORTEX, FreeRTOS, VxWorks | visual studio, IAR Embedded Workbench, Windreiver Workbench | Manual, functionality, common security issues, etc | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 25 | 15 |
Show |
| Design of experiments of the control algorithms that I have implemented. | CODESYS | Simulink PLC coder / CODESYS | N/A | 30-60 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| I test against test specs running the code in the defined condition and tacking note of the results. | 8051, AVR ATMEGA32, ARM7 | IAR Embedded Workbench, KEIL MDK-ARM | code is reviewed by my colleagues by means of SVN compare tool | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Ad-hoc | Embedded instrumentation | MS Visual C, various compilers | Peer review controlled by Trac tickets | 31-60 seconds | 70 | 20 | 10 |
Show |
| Jtag probe debugger to debug realtime issues I usually write my own debug code | STM32 microcontroller based analogue input module | IAR workbench | peer code reviews | 31-60 seconds | 30% | 30% | 30% |
Show |
| gtest and Klocwork static analysis | Cortex M processor | IAR WB | peer reviews | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| CODESYS test manager unit testing | E+PLC400 - PowerPC based system. | CODESYS, visual studio | Code reviews are done at the end of the code / test development process and usually involve the engineer that wrote the code and an additional engineer. | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 70 | 10 |
Show |
| we have unit tests for corner cases and api testing. We also use larger system black box testing scripts in python. | ARM | Source Insight, VIM, gcc, armcc, git | we use code collaborator to review code between domains | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| running automated tests, and bench testing my drive with already made tests | testing done in linux on a drive or fpga | eclipse, notepad ++ | we use code collaborator and atleast two reviews must be on them | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| unit & regression testing | ARM M3 | slickedit, arium | Engineers do a decent job through code collaborator tool | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Via existing system-level regression tests, and through Python-initiated SCSI commands that initiate . | The target is an multi-core ASIC media controller. | Arium Sourcepoint, Slickedit, Git, Code Collaborator, custom Python scripts. | We use Code Collaborator for reviews. | 1-5 minutes | 40% | 30% | 30% |
Show |
| - | - | - | - | 5-30 minutes | 70 | 15 | 15 |
Show |
| Jenkins using test scripts using python and shell scripts. | Solid state drive SSD | green hills | we use code collaborator to peer review | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Combination of on-target testing and unit testing | 3 CPU arm-5 based system | Greenhills Software, previously ARM/RealView | done on a git server tool (stash) | 5-30 minutes | 35 | 20 | 45 |
Show |
| Manual Unit Test Black box testing | Flash Controller | Xtensa, GDB, Eclipse, | personal, on request | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 10 | 60 |
Show |
| Bench test, Cutest, checkin test, nightly regression test, internal weekly tests, reliability tests, system compatibility test | embedded multi-core ARM | Green Hills, doxygen, Notepad++, GIT, stash, JIRA | Stash, not formal, 2 engineers must approve | 1-5 minutes | 25 | 25 | 50 |
Show |
| Ground and pound. | TI chips -- concerto, piccolo | Eclipse, MS Visual Studio, Dynamic C IDE | non-existant | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 10 | 50 |
Show |
| Blackbox tests controlled by Python that initiates host to controller (our firmware) traffic. Firmware controlled logging of events and errors. | An SSD controller. | Xtensa Explorer, Eclipse | Mostly nonexistant. | 11-30 seconds | 80 | 15 | 5 |
Show |
| If I think I need to I will write code embedded in the firmware to test functionality. Otherwise I use system tests if they exist. | ssd build around multiple arm processors. | arm compilier/ vim | code collaborator. seems to work well. | 30-60 minutes | 20% | 30% | 50% |
Show |
| - Nightly Python system tests - Separate test organization running proprietary Python test scripts against devices | SSD ASIC with Tensilica CPU cores | Xtensa (Eclipse- & gcc-derived dev environment) | No code reviews | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| Running my code on the target against current tests or test I have written. | A solid state drive running in a PC. | Sublime text editor, Greenhills tools, test system, serial port | Code reviews are done using an online tool, from at least 2 people. | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| By performing Unit Tests using such things as printf's to monitor internal states, Fault Insertion Macros, Emulators, Pythons scripts... | SSD | Compilier, Arium Debugger | CodeCollaborator | 1-5 minutes | 60% | 20% | 20% |
Show |
| Python based manual test | Embedded Processor | Modified Eclipse | N/A | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| - | - | - | - | 1-5 minutes | - | - | - |
Show |
| NA | NA | Eclipse | NA | 1-2 hours | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| Stubs | FPGA & ASIC w/JTAG | SlickEdit, Jenkins, JIRA, etc. | collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Show |
| debugger, Python test scripts | prototype NVMe Flash drive | Xtensa Xplorer, Eclipse | none | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 40 | 50 |
Show |
| Python scripts that perform component testing | SSD firmware | Confidential | CodeCollaborator | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 30 | 10 |
Show |
| Write specialized test in Python or SPTI aimed at the device under test. Write Analyzer scripts to test protocol specific functionality. | SAS SSD | Arium, SPTI, Python | Code Collaborator | 5-30 minutes | 10 | 30 | 60 |
Show |
| RTRT | DTCO | Eclipse & Softune | we do | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| module test | I do not have one. | Rhapsody, Compiler, Cantata++, PC-Lint, Jenkins | They are based on best knowledge. | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| After the development of the Code based on performance specification | Embedded | Eclipse, MS-VS, Codewright | Happen on every code change | 1-5 minutes | 30% | 50% | 20 |
Show |
| partially on host (cantata), Dynamic tests, partially automated. Tests done in target by developers via debugger. | embedded 32 microcontoller | eclipse, | done by senior developers | 31-60 seconds | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Show |
| Currently I use RTRT and .ptu scripts. | My target system is the digital tachograph. | Eclipse and CodeWright | When I do a review , I check if our coding standards are respected , and if the change affect other parts of the system. | 1-5 minutes | 35 | 45 | 20 |
Show |
| debugging on the emulator and module test | DTRPR is a module from DTCO that is responsible for calculating and providing information to the driver | Softtoon, Rational Test RealTime | First I check for functional issues and then if the coding standards are met | 5-30 minutes | 15 | 40 | 45 |
Show |
| I am a SW architect as such I don't directly test code | Embedded multi controller | Whiteboard, Pen paper ,Word, Excel, UML editor ,Compiler ,linker , Static Code analysis, Sw test tool, Debugger, Emulator, Hardware | informal | 31-60 seconds | 10 | 10 | 10 |
Show |
| Cantata++, mainly on black-box level, which also enables a white-box test, by having enough tests on interface level to execute all the internals (close to 100% branch coverage). | Different controllers, small targets, but I don't care a lot. | UML (Rhapsody), eclipse | No tool in place. | Under 10 seconds | 40 | 50 | 10 |
Show |
| Code review, Integration testing, white box testing. | Code is written in C | Eclipse, Visual Studio, Tasking | Not enough done, and people not communication good enough in my opinion. | 1-5 minutes | 15% | 80% | 5% |
Show |
| module test and target test | Automoted embeded system with 2 controllers | Eclipse CDT Galileo | functional flow and coding standard | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| After development we perform UT, MT, IT and ST | Sfottune, Eclips, Micro controller, RTRT, Cantata++, Rhapsody | Sfottune, Eclips, Micro controller, RTRT, Cantata++, Rhapsody | Formal and semi formal review. | 31-60 seconds | 45 | 45 | 10 |
Show |
| Module/Unit test, Integration test, Desktop Test (Simulator/Emulator) | Microcontroller | Emulator, Simulator | - | 5-30 minutes | 25 | 30 | 45 |
Show |
| With Rational test real time and desktop testing | Embedded system | Rhapsody, Tasking and now some new | Usually new code I let review within a 4 eye reveiw | 5-30 minutes | 10 | 10 | 10 |
Show |
| Manually, or with scripts. | Linux | Jenkins | n/a | 1-5 minutes | 5-10 | 50 | 40 |
Show |
| print statements and test case runs | win8 and linux | eclipse, pycharm, JTAG debuggers | na | 11-30 seconds | 20% | 30% | 50% |
Show |
| Unit Test, System Test | SSD | Eclipse | Code Collab or Pull Request | 1-5 minutes | 25 | 25 | 50 |
Show |
| Python test scripts | SSD | GNU/SourcePoint | Very Good | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| Custom unit tests and system tests. Internal test framework. | C based embeded system | slickedit, sourcepoint, pycharm | online with code collaborator | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 20 | 60 |
Show |
| Debugger/Emulator | embedded | slickedit, eclipse, code collaborator | Using code collaborator | 5-30 minutes | 70 | 20 | 10 |
Show |
| I write a python script to excercise each feature that I implement. | SSD | arm compiler, slickedit | We use collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 50% | 20% | 30% |
Show |
| Run it on the ASIC and see what happens. | Enterprise SSD | Eclipse | We use Collaborator by SmartBear | 1-5 minutes | 40% | 30% | 30% |
Show |
| Unit test, regression/nightly test | ARM | Greenhill | ? | 1-5 minutes | 30% | 40% | 40% |
Show |
| Verify with break points or verify with logic analyzer to decode access code source. | Embedded SOC | ARM DS5 | Look at the flow of the code development. and how to debug/test | 31-60 seconds | 30% | 30% | 40% |
Show |
| I test the different pieces of it as I develop it. | Not sure what I can tell you about it. | JTAG, Greenhills probe, Eclipse, GIT | They happen before anything gets checked into trunk. | 1-5 minutes | 20% | 50% | 30% |
Show |
| system level tests, unit tests | ARM, Linux CentOS | ARM, GNU | CodeCollaborator w/ multiple peers | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Given a firmware requirement, I contact the firmware owner and we discuss expected behavior and test cases and what the expected results should be. I then create the test based on the expected behavior and the test cases we want to hit ironing out any unexpected behavior by communicating with the firmware owner. | Actual disk hardware connected to a Windows 8 mother board. | Eclipse with PyDev | Code reviews are required and approval of the reviewers is required prior to merging the code. | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| System tests, White box tests, some Unit tests | Embedded ARM system with lots of custom hardware/RTL | Arm compiler and toolchain, Eclipse for C/C++ | Sincerely done | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| It is a mix of: - hand-walking through new code with a simulator/emulator - hand-generated dedicated unit-tests - creation of special top-level regression tests - pass through the suite of regression tests | Embedded multi-core ARM SSD drive | SlickEdit, gcc, ddd, ARM compiler, pylint, TestRunner (this year) | Run in Code Collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 35% (includes design) | 40% | 25% |
Show |
| on hardware, write python scripts or use host testing tools to test the specific functionality. we also used google test to write unit tests. | not sure I understand "target system", but I work on firmware on SSD controller | xtensa IDE; source insight viewer; gdb in linux;also some customized flight recorder; when using ARM processors, I enjoyed using ETM/ETB with lauterbach debugger | we use code collaborators | 30-60 minutes | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| python script to stimulate system. Logs/printf/emulator to step through code. gdb on simulator. | SSD drive | eclipse editor, arium emulator, linux host with target device attached. | code collaborator peer reviews | 5-30 minutes | 10% | 20% | 20% |
Show |
| yes | linux | gcc, | more often | 2-4 hours | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| combo of unit/bench test | Linux | Eclipse, Visual Studio | CC | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Functional tests in system, because that is the only way to test. | Embedded microcontroller (Multi-core ARM) with dedicated custom hardware | Eclipse CDT, vim, gnu-arm tools, Arium ARM debugger | thorough | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Unit testing and Jenkins. | SSD | Logic analyzer, Debugger | Code collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 30 | 10 |
Show |
| Write my own tests. Simulated environment in Visual Studio. | Embedded | FPGA, JTAG | Code Collaborator | Under 10 seconds | 40 | 5 | 55 |
Show |
| Depends on the function of code I'm writing. | Embedded ARM processors | RealView, Arium | Done on-line using Code Collaborator software. | 1-5 minutes | Depends on the phase of the project. | Depends on the phase of the project. | Depends on the phase of the project. |
Show |
| Xtensa debugger and python code. | Tensilica CPU | Xtensa Explorer, Eclipse with PyDev plugin, SAD - in house JTAG register set/display | Minimal | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 10 | 10 |
Show |
| Third Party tools, In-house test tools, Independent Software vendor Tools, | ARM | Source in-sight, Microsoft Visual Studio | Peer code review, code collabrator | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 35 | 35 |
Show |
| Python unit tests, examination of counters and data dumps after allowing the calibration to run. | PC | Xtensa Eclipse, PyDev, Idle (Python) | NA | 1-5 minutes | 35 | 35 | 30 |
Show |
| I have built some basic unit test. | HD and SSD. | Windows, Python, software simulation, Arium debugger.. | We use Code Collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| na | na | na | na | 1-2 hours | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Show |
| Manually run unit-test/module testing. | ARM Cortex-M4F | IAR CooCox | Soon to be online peer reviews. | 11-30 seconds | 60 | 25 | 15 |
Show |
| Automated and functional (user-run, hands-on at desk and in the lab) tests. | Welders, Wire Feeders and the User Interfaces that control them. | Code Composer Studio, CodeWarrior | Rare, and usually over-the-shoulder | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Functional test at a system level. Unit tests informally throughout development. | arc welding power supplies, Cortex M, C2000, Coldfire | Code Composer, Notepad++, Eclipse, Visual Studio | Very informal over the shoulder reviews. Working to develop a formal process. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Black box test procedures on engineering test fixtures and final project. | Water heaters with controls 64K code range. | CodeWarrior and KDS | For many years they were scarce and done in one giant effort at the end of the project. We just started using them this past year using CodeReviewer to review changes to code and will be starting new projects using it on an ongoing basis. | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| Unit testing | iMX6 running WEC800 | Visual Studio, Platform builder | Sometimes done as a group, sometimes durring paired programming | 31-60 seconds | 60% | 10% | 30% |
Show |
| Using the debugger to hit breakpoints and manipulate values | Gas detection instrument with an Energy Micro processor | IAR | We use Crucible for online code reviews, but it is difficult to get reviewers to participate | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Run through self-created software qualification procedure along with Reliability testing | tiny 8/16-bit MCU's | IAR, Code Composer, AVR | internal code design reviews | Under 10 seconds | 20% | 50% | 30% |
Show |
| unit testing - manual / Vector cast system testing - manual | ARM | IAR | manual review / static analysis | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| HP ALM using test protocols and test cases | Insulin pump delivery | IAR for embedded | Usually send the code to peer reviewer and have a meeting for collaboration | 31-60 seconds | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Show |
| against the low level requirements using the IAR embedded Work bench | Insulin pump | IAR | walk through reviews | 1-5 minutes | 3 years | 5 years | 3 years |
Show |
| Black Box Testing | Embedded Systems - Insulin Pumps | IAR for embedded. | I am not familiar with them yet at my new company. | 31-60 seconds | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Show |
| White box testing, formal verification | Battery-powered insulin infusion pump with 5 microprocessors inside. | IAR for embedded target, mostly Visual Studio for PC | Author, QE and at least one independent reviewer examine design intent and code. | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Manually at desk | NXP ASP, ARM Cortex | GCC, Eclipse | Do one every so often | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 10 | 60 |
Show |
| Unit test for the C++ modules are run automatically on each build. For the C part it is still a manual process that has to be run on every change. In addition to that there's your everyday dev testing on the different embedded targets we deploy to | 3 different embedded platforms each running a different version of Linux (+1 PC Linux target) | QtCreator, proprietary build system (based on Scons) | Web-based reviews using Reviewboard, the reviews are posted to the whole competency team working on the component | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| CUnit/CMock (customized solution that fits best the Stoneridge needs) | Renesas RH850 & Renesas V850 | IAR, Eclipse (C/C++ package), Visual Studio, gcc | Peer-review. Codestriker | 31-60 seconds | 35 | 40 | 25 |
Show |
| Littel bit of everything, unittest and manualy ie live system | Truck, Bus | Eclipse, IAR Workbench | Don't happen very often | 1-5 minutes | 15 | 35 | 35 |
Show |
| Unit tests, regression tests and finally system tests | Usually 32bit embedded systems, Renesas MCU´s | Eclipse, IAR and in-house tools | Peer-review | 1-5 minutes | 45 | 35 | 20 |
Show |
| Unit testing | PC | QtCreator | 2 persons are doing review on pull request. | Under 10 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Dev testing manually and by running unit tests, nightly automated test runs, automated system/integration tests from a custom framework, performance tests with KPI comparison | Hifi audio system running ARM, TV system running Intel Atom, IoT running PPC and host as generic Linux | QtCretor, custom build env on top of SCons using GCC 4.8 | ReviewBoard with SVN commit hooks | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| manual testing, unit-tests (if there is time for that) | linux, soft RTOS, userspace applications, audio streaming | gcc, gdb, customized Scons, QTCreator as editor, console, JIRA | we use 'reviewboard', RBTools, reviewing is done before commitment to SVN | 1-5 minutes | 70 | 15 | 15 |
Show |
| Currently I use unit tests and manual tests for GUI. | Cross-platform concurrent distributed systems | Eclipse, Qt Designer, Qt Creator, Visual Studio | Code is reviewed by at least two peers in Atlassian Stash during pull requests. | Under 10 seconds | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| CUnit for unit tests C# & NUnit for test automation using variuous hardware simulators | Atmel AVR | IAR, Eclipse, gcc | Before every release. Tend to gather up and then we flash through too many files. | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| try and fail | embedded platform | visual studio | no experience yet | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| unit tests and interation tests | To make my programs more robust | Microsoft Visual studio | not many code reviews | Under 10 seconds | 70% | 10% | 20% |
Show |
| TestComplete | Maritime monitoring and control systems for mechant systems | Visual Studio 2010 | - | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Mostly by debugging through JTAG or other emulators | Mostly Analog Devices Blackfin, a bit of PIC and ARM | Specialized IDEs based on eclipse and netbeans | Next to none | 11-30 seconds | 35 | 35 | 30 |
Show |
| By trial and error, the old way. | PIC, EFM32, Blackfin. | Eclipse, GCC, MPLab x | - | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Manual self-test. Verification by test department. Some unit testing for "code approriate for unit testing". | Embedded Linux (ARM), Windows Embedded (x86) | Qt Creator, Visual Studio, gcc, git, TFS | Some percentages of our code are reviewed. Sometimes reviewer and coder sits together. | Under 10 seconds | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| printf statements mostly, Some ad hoc tests to debug/verify code blocks on development host | ADI Blackfin w/uClinux, Cortex A8 ARM w/yocto linux | gcc/g++ mostly | Used to have codereviews in my earlier job, but not in my current job. | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| using self developed app, which calls various methods in my code. | centos7 | gcc, gdb | at least 2 peers will review my code, before it is committed to the official version control system | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| white/black box test | x86 system with various HW types | Linux & open source tool chain | peer code review | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 50 | 30 |
Show |
| using py.test for feature test | video streaming | eclipse | after checking in code, we submit code for review and resolve alll comments before checking in to the repository. | 1-5 minutes | 50% | 20% | 30% |
Show |
| Write short test scripts, use REPL etc. | CentOS | vim, WebStorm | We use PRRQ. | Under 10 seconds | Not sure | Not sure | Not sure |
Show |
| Currently we have our test programs written in cppTest testing framework. | Linux | VI Editor, GCC compiler, Linux tools | Currently its being peer reviewed | 5-30 minutes | 50% | 30% | 20% |
Show |
| n/a | n/a | Visual Studio/Eclipse | Yes | 5-30 minutes | 40% | 40% | 20% |
Show |
| For a certain module, write production code first, then write unit test to test module as a big box. Use test coverage tool to monitor test coverage, enhance the unit testing if necessary. | arm9 based SSD controller from marvell, dual core. | sourceinsight, arm compiler, GIT, Jira | Nothing special, just read the source code and give recommendations | 31-60 seconds | 30% | 35% | 35% |
Show |
| with test scripts | M510DC | ARM RVDS 4.0 | git pull request | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| Hardware platform | Hardware platform | Hardware board | Yes | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| Write debug code and serial command, and run DM2 scripts. | Don't understand. | Source Insight to edit, ARM compiler to compile. | It takes 3 people a whole day to review 1000 lines code. | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| UT/Coverity | arm based SOC | DS5 | git pull request/code collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| unit test. scripts. | ARM | ARM realreview development suite | involve 2 or more senior engineers to review the code together. | 1-5 minutes | 30% | 20% | 50% |
Show |
| yes | windows | 2010express | we review our code before we check in the code | 1-5 minutes | 50% | 30% | 20% |
Show |
| simulator + test script | embedded system | source insight | before check in code | 31-60 seconds | 20% | 30% | 30% |
Show |
| simulator, | no OS | SI | collaborator | 5-30 minutes | 40% | 30% | 30% |
Show |
| none | metha | metha | CC | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| unit test,script test, serial command | arm | arm | we will create a meeting to review it | 31-60 seconds | 30% | 40% | 30% |
Show |
| unit test | Hardware development board | Lauch Batch | Peer review and supervisor review | 1-2 hours | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| No | Embedded system | ICE | ccollab | 5-30 minutes | 30% | 30% | 40% |
Show |
| Manually using unit tests that are created to verify correct code functionality and that requirements are met. | Linux OS on mulitiple hardware platforms. | Eclipse, gcc, gdb, gdbserver | Code reviews conduected using ReviewBoard. | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| I think of tests and I execute them. | embedded | gcc | informal and formal | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| I run it and check the output. | Reduced-resource (embedded) type system running Linux. | vim, gcc | Every commit is scheduled for a code review by two "peers" to the person having done the change. | 1-5 minutes | ... | ... | ... |
Show |
| on the spot checks during development | Embedded system using real-time kernel | Kinetis Design Studio | informal | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| TDD | Linux firmware running on Archer C7 mips target | Eclipse, vim, QM modeler, gdb, svn | formal | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 35 | 15 |
Show |
| My team uses unit tests, and we are developing fully automated integration tests. We also use simulators or Jmeter for load testing. | Jboss in a VM | My team uses Eclipse or Jboss developer studio | One person reviews code and provides feedback. We don't do this often, but we are trying to get in the habit of doing so in a more agile manner. | 1 day or more | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Manual test, automated unit test with unit test framework, some gui automation, instrumented code, debugger step through if neccessary | Linux based security/networking appliance | many | Some people do good reviews, some people rubberstamp, most people dont have enough domain expertise to understand the fine details of the code they are reviewing to catch issues | 5-30 minutes | 20% | 40% | 40% |
Show |
| unit tests, component tests, functional tests | Linux, OSX | various | all code is reviewed before committed | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Both manual and automated tests | Varies, largely PC/Servers and embedded | primarily vi/emacs for code editing, shell scripts for basic build environments and testing | code reviews are generally few and far between | 1-5 minutes | 35 | 10 | 55 |
Show |
| Manually, once; then as-needed. | IP video set top boxes with various different hardware, SOCs, kernels, etc. | gcc, make, atom, vim | All code is reviewed before merging to the tip via Gerrit; Jenkins performs build testing. | Under 10 seconds | 80 | 10 | 10 |
Show |
| manually and automation | stb rdk | none | na | 1 day or more | na | na | na |
Show |
| Ad-hoc procedures. Each team member has his/her own methods. | Embedded system written in C++ | GNU Toolchain, Make, git | We review the interfaces, we rarely review implementation. | 5-30 minutes | 60 | 10 | 30 |
Show |
| unit tests, manual acceptance tests | ARM systems | Atmel Studio | code together | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Manually | linux | vim | by tech lead | 1-5 minutes | 70 | 20 | 10 |
Show |
| Google Test | Intel | Vi | Peer Review - ReviewBoard | 1-2 hours | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| VB^ scrips communicating to a test rig. | Not sure what you are looking for | VB6, Python, | We have not done one in a while. | 30-60 minutes | 20 | 50 | 30 |
Show |
| Firmware test group test the firmware per requirement for the products and how firmware implemented the requirements | N/A | N/A | peers reviews the code | Under 10 seconds | 60 | 30 | 10 |
Show |
| Test scripts in python | Embedded electronic power meters based on various CPUs | IAR compilers, Renesas compilers | Team based code reviews with everybody (3-5 people) looking at the code | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Write scripts to test the functionality | ? | none | Email the code out and hope someone reviews it | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 20 | 60 |
Show |
| Unit test using scripts | electronic power meter, embedded communication modules | IC emulators, J-tag debuggers | peer and formal code reviews | 30-60 minutes | 10 | 50 | 40 |
Show |
| visual basic scripts | smart meters | luna, visual studio | peer review | 2-4 hours | 70 | 10 | 20 |
Show |
| unit test, test functions embedded into firmware | Communication module which resides on 3rd party device | IAR, CodeWrite | regular code reviews | Under 10 seconds | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| Python testing. | N/A | Eclipse, Visual Studios | N/A | Under 10 seconds | 30 | 35 | 35 |
Show |
| Exercise code and also exercise code to cause failure to insure failures are properly trapped. | CC1110 radio chip on PCMCIA card. | IAR compiler. CodeWrite editor. SmartSVN version control. | Call meetings with other developers to review code if change is significant | 1-5 minutes | 1 | 5 | 2 |
Show |
| Local testing, try to think of likely failure cases | ARM system | IAR Embedded Workbench | Use ReviewBoard and meetings | 31-60 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| unit test, mini system on bench, verification, system | Embedded microcontrollers | IAR | less common than they used to be | 11-30 seconds | 33 | 33 | 33 |
Show |
| Run it and debug it | NA | NA | peer review | Under 10 seconds | 30 | 60 | 10 |
Show |
| Custom simulator | Custom ASIC | Custom written assembler and simulator | I am the only one who knows it | 31-60 seconds | 70 | 20 | 10 |
Show |
| a small amount of unittesting (when applicable), alot of python tests acting on the DUT. | ARM Cortex M4 | IAR, Visual Studio, Eclipse | we use review board. I find that most code reviews are more a factor of who attends them, than the amount of them. Having the right people in the room allows for better reviews. | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| we use a combination of VB and Python to test firmware releases running on the target HW via the external interfaces that are available | embeddd | IAR compilers, Eclipse | typically desk reviews with occasional group reviews, started using ReviewBoard tool to capture/track comments | 1-5 minutes | <10 | <10 | <10 |
Show |
| Try as many test cases as possibly. Python script to loop through tests. | ARM Cortex-M4 with RTOS | IAR, Eclipse, Visual Studio | Periodic depending on the size of the commit | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| python sanity tests using unittest/nose, manual testing | ARM Cortex M4 | IAR/Visual Studio | We use a combination of ReviewBoard and in person reviews. People typically review the code ahead of time and come to the reviews with questions or concerns. When changes are made, developers will send out another review of the corrections. | 31-60 seconds | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| real time audio analyser processor simulator | Embedded DSP | xIDE, Visual Studio | hahaha | 1-5 minutes | 20% | 30% | 15% |
Show |
| On bench and during system test. | risc processor, small memory, no OS. | Notepad++, make, in house compiler. Bluelab (In house IDE), emacs if forced. | We have them. | 1-5 minutes | 5% | 5% | 20% |
Show |
| In system | Soundbar/Headset | MIsc PC and Linux | Not very fulfilling | 31-60 seconds | 20% | 40% | 40% |
Show |
| Unit testing for the areas where unit tests currently exist. Nightly smoke tests for daily builds, full system testing for release candidates. | Typically an eval board, containing one of our bluetooth chips with a whole bunch of peripherals around it to exercise all the functionality designed into our code base - buttons, I2S amplifiers, microphone inputs etc | In -house IDE and tools | Changes are made to the code through changelists, and every changelist must be reviewed by someone qualified to review the specific area, before submitting. | 1-5 minutes | 15 | 60 | 25 |
Show |
| A little bit after I write it. | At work? There are a small number of C unit tests which no one uses. There are many TCL Expect scripts for testing firmware behaviour. | Vim and tmux | All code changes are reviewed. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| System test only, however I have been trying to get into the habit of unit testing functions, however with the current code base this is quite difficult. | A 16 bit microcontroller | GCC | Team reviews are made per commit | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| Ad-hoc developer testing followed by regular system test. | XAP processor. Message based single threaded environment. | In house customised IDE wrapped around make, gcc and a range of other utilities/tools. | Code reviews are done by another team member after completion of the bug/feature but before they're committed to the main code base. | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| small projects: functional test mid-big projects: unit test | bluetooth audio | CSR proprietary and VS2008 | balance between good practices, readbility and functionality | 31-60 seconds | 30% | 40% | 30% |
Show |
| JUnit test cases NUnit test cases Relying on System Test team | Windows application for .NET (NUnit) mainly | Visual Studio; Eclipse | Some peer reviews for .NET development | Under 10 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| combination of unit tests and tests on actual devices | firmware for CSR Bluetooth chips | emacs | done by a fellow member of the team | 1-5 minutes | 25 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Code is tested on a representative hardware platform, then manual and automated tests are carried out by a Test Team | Custom embedded platform with additional DSP. | xIDE (in house embedded C development tool) | Code reviews are strictlyenforced and work well | 11-30 seconds | 5 | 20 | 75 ( most of my work is finding and fixing bugs) |
Show |
| Only recently started using on Host unit tests. Before that lots of manual testing during development and System tests. | CSR XAP micro | CSR proprietary | Not always done by the most appropriate person | 5-30 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| We currently test our code by running the code onto the hardware and capturing debug traces. | CSR XAP processor , Kalimba DSP processor | Xide tool chain | Sometimes they are just obligatory but most of the times they are quite in-depth. | 1-5 minutes | 25 | 25 | 50 |
Show |
| Manual tests, in-house Test On Target framework, Soaktester test engine which uses TCL scripts for more extensive testing. | XAP2 processor | GCC, GVIM, IPython, Perforce, Notepad++ | Code reviews are an integral part of our team's development process. All code we submit are reviewed by at least one other teammate. | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Currently applying minimal testing on the generated code, if not none. | SOC devices for wireless communication systems | Cross platform for embedded C and .NET for desktop applications | Regular reviews per change list in a particular field | 5-30 minutes | %60 | %5 | %35 |
Show |
| Manual tests, debuger | Embedded system, integrated Bluetooth chip | Notepad++, xIDE, eclipse, code::blocks | I didn't do much of them | 11-30 seconds | 20 | 60 | 20 |
Show |
| Unity for new modules; "system test" for existing functionality; lots of manual testing when fixing bugs. | Bluetooth Audio Chip (CSR) | xIDE, shell scripts, make, in-house utilites | Slow & cumbersome | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 50 | 40 |
Show |
| Manual tests Running code in debugger Unity test harness (currently on library code only) | Embedded code on XAP Processor | Debugger for XAP Processor | All code changes must be reviewed by someone else before submitting to our codebase | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| -Manually -Some automation -Unity test framework | Embedded SOC's and Controllers | CSR specific development tools | Reviews are done as per system requriements and coding guidlines and optimization | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| With Phones and Bluetooth Profile Test Suite(PTS) | CSR embedded dev kits | CSR developement platform | Code developed is reviewed for optimization, logic check and coding standard | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| - Unity testing: Unity test framework using Cmock. - Functional testing: against other standard Bluetooth enabled devices (such as phones, tablets, speakers and PCs etc) - Conformance testing: using Profile tuning suite (for qualification to Bluetooth standards) | Bluetooth headsets, speakers, soundbars | CSR specific Development Environment (xIDE) | code reviews are clear and precise from subject experts and mainly focusing on functionality aspects | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 25 | 35 |
Show |
| My code usually have some unit tests. In general our code is tested by system level manual tests. | It is reference design of Bluetooth music playing headsets, speakers and soundabrs. It runs on 16 bit invented next door processor. | Eclipse and gcc | Reviews are mandatory (recently) but rather informal. Due to current system limitation usually there is only one reviewer and it is not easy to refer to specific place in code. | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| real time debugger, i/o, end result etc as appropriate | CSR xap processor, Kalimba DSP | Xide | all changes reviewed | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| unity tests | Bluetooth headset/speaker/soundbar. BlueCore (XAP) with on-chip host | xIDE (SDK) and other in house tools | They are generally useful | 30-60 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Run regression over weeks | Cisco router | Linux workstation | Use Cisco PRRQ | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| automation/ manual test/ system test beds | x86 systems with network processors | GNU tools | Peer reviews | 5-30 minutes | design + code - 60% | 30% | 10% |
Show |
| Run it and verify it works. | N/A | Eclipse | Very infrequent | Under 10 seconds | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| CppUTest | Bare-metal ARM7TDMI / Linux x86 / Linux ARM | GNU, Qt Creator, SVN, git, VS Code | standard practice, reasonably rigorous | 31-60 seconds | 15 | 5 | 10 |
Show |
| Roughly: 40% via unit test, 30% via manual testing, 10% via our Lua integration, and 20% likely not covered at all. This discipline is horrible, and I need help to change it. | C++/OpenGL on Linux target with 1Ghz CPU and 1GB RAM | gcc, gdb, make, QtCreator, SmartSVN, CppUTest, SciTools Understand, google perftools | We don't do them, but I really wish that we did. | 1-5 minutes | 30% | 20% | 50% |
Show |
| Plugging it into a simulated test environment and observing the output | x86 dual core 32 bit linux | gdb, valgrind | Informal, and might not occure at all unless a check-in causes problems. | 31-60 seconds | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| An extensive but manual process involving debugger verifications, regressions, and end to end test both in a simulated and real-world environment. | Embedded Linux and bare-metal ARM. | vi, gdb, cscope, Qt Creator, unix | Informal; usually a second set of eyeballs and a walk-through. Sometimes exhaustive, sometimes not. | 11-30 seconds | 25% | 50% | 25% |
Show |
| Manual Functional test | ARM-7 raw processor, no OS | GNU | - | 1-5 minutes | 25% | 25% | 50% |
Show |
| More and more unit testing with lots and lots of manual integration testing. | embedded linux x86 | qt creator, subversion, smartsvn | We have then regularly now which is good, but I would still consider them unfocused. | 1-5 minutes | 33% | 33% | 33% |
Show |
| Load image to route/switch with debug logging information | Cisco switch/router | clearcase, Cisco ADS | Cisco Peer Review tool | 1-5 minutes | 50% | 25% | 25% |
Show |
| Mostly manual testing. With some critical python scripts I will do unit testing. In some cases I develop integrated tests. | SkyView and D3. | PyCharm, QtCreator, Visual Studio | They are fairly productive, I credit most of my personal development as a programmer to code review feedback. | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 70 | 10 |
Show |
| I make a list of things that need to be tested based on requirements, and then I run through each thing manually to make sure the requirements have been tested. Then after checking in the code, I write down a manual test procedure of sorts so that someone else can carry out the steps that I just did. | Often app code inside SKyview, or possibly ARM code | GDB, remote debugging, logic analyzer, bus sniffing, debug serial ports | We have them when we feel one is needed or desired by the developer. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Black box testing, some built in unit test code, some throw away unit test code. | Embedded systems (IOS or Linux) running in Cisco switches and routers | gcc/icc | Internal code reviews based on internal review tool | 30-60 minutes | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| mostly unit testing via TDD, some integration/acceptance testing | Linux servers deployed via AWS | vim, emacs, Eclipse | we primarily pair and do some pull requests | 11-30 seconds | 49 | 49 | 2 |
Show |
| JUNIT for java, not much for c++ | LINUX | Eclipse | code collaborator | 2-4 hours | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| setup testbed | cisco router | none | cisco code review standard | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| I unit test with my daemon's client | ARM Linux | GCC, VIM | PRRQ | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| Unit test | N/A | eclipse | Perr code review | 30-60 minutes | 60 | 30 | 10 |
Show |
| Mostly just ad-hoc, manual testing. | Linux based embedded system | GNU and Qt Creator | few and far between | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| laborious functional bench testing | ARM (preferrably Cortex-M) | ARM-MDK, GNU tools(gcc, gdb, make, etc.) | We do them......sometimes...... | 1-5 minutes | 30% | 20% | 50% |
Show |
| white box testing, edge cases, positive and negative testing | system running uC-OSII or ThreadX | GreenHills Multi, IAR Embedded Workbench | Peer or Formal reviews using CodeCollaborator from SmartBear | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| CPPUTest run with GCC | STM32 | Keil, GCC, Eclipse | 3 or more people, 1 must be senior, 1 must be off platform | Under 10 seconds | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| mostly manually, some assembly testing | custom built PCBs using Microchip dsPIC33 uCs, native code, no OS | Mplab X, some code analysis tool, Spreadsheet, | it'd be nice. | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 20 | 10 |
Show |
| Embedded test. Unit Test, Product Test | Embedded | Green Hills, IAR | We have then. Somewhat painful | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| Test its feature or test with test command. | uc/OS-II, Embedded system | MULTI debugger | Suppose this is optional. | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Unit tests using TDD where practical and system-level feature/regression tests. For full system development, I often perform system-level fuzzing tests. | Varies by customer, but often Cortex-M class microcontrollers | C: gcc + openocd + eclipse, Python: PyCharm, cmake. Visual Studio on Windows. | Infrequent by others as my consulting is often sole-developer for a product or specific features. Lint and -Wall -Wextra -pedantic are my friends. | Under 10 seconds | 35 | 35 | 30 (including system testing) |
Show |
| test vectors in terms of test code + debuggers | ARM based Micro running uCos , Linux based custom target | GreenHills IAD, WindRiver work bench | rigerous peer review using code collabborator tools | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| Test application to connect unit for test/debug | RFID reader | MULTI project manager | collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 30% | 20% | 50% |
Show |
| No | Windows Mobile, CE, Android and iOS | VS2005, 2008, 2013, 2015, Android Studio and XCode | N/A | 30-60 minutes | 40 | 10 | 50 |
Show |
| Verify functionality | Various ARM based targets | IAR, GreenHills | We use Code Collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| combo of unit test and functional test. | various ARM and ATmega, 8051 | greenhills / IAR | Yes, we have them | 31-60 seconds | 25 | 25 | 50 |
Show |
| Consider how a module can be tested when designing API; write unit tests at same time as implementing code; integration and system testing done as a separate exercise before verification/validation | SoC ARM A-9 core; Tensilica Mini108 core | Xtensa IDE toolchain; TBD for ARM | Use Stash pull requests as gatekeeper; reviewer can add comments and tasks | 31-60 seconds | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| with tests created by us | EMMC | Visual Studio | Collaborator | 30-60 minutes | 30% | 20% | 50% |
Show |
| Previous project used Parasoft to unit test as much as possible. | ARM | Greenhills | Good | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| CppUnit | embedded | Visual Studio, Eclipse | Stash or Code Collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| CppUnit and White Box testing | ARC | Visual Studio | Stash, CodeCollaborator | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| I create some stubs in which the function is pasted. The stub has some nested loops. Each cycle loops on all possible cases of an input variable of the tested function. Furthermore, the stub contains the print with all the input paramaters, the function expected ouptut | ARC Microcontroller | Visual Studio | I use Code collaborator tool | 30-60 minutes | 25 | 30 | 45 |
Show |
| Using Simulator and TestStub | Embedded System with ARC-CPU | Lauterbach, Visual Studio | before merge feature branch on master branch , we have to create a Pull-Request (STASH-Atlassian) | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| I use the simulator | embedded | lauterbach, Visual Studio | I use STASH-Atlassian to create pull request and approuve code review | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Regression runs using simulation and emulation/unittest | Embedded ASIC | Eclipse, VC, SVN | In-house, ad-hoc | 5-30 minutes | 10 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Breakpoints, step in, analyze trace logs. Use printf. | Embedded HW platforms | Visual C++ Studio, Eclipse | Fair | 1-5 minutes | 20% | 60% | 20% |
Show |
| Tests are primarily Python-driven via a unittest-derived class library. These execute against the product firmware in various targets in emulation, simulation and actual silicon. We also have some standalone variant builds tested via Python, SystemVerilog and C. | Its a management ASIC for controlling stacked DRAM die. | GNU-derived C compilers, Visual C, make, Eclipse, Source Insight | Offline peer review, collaborative walkthrough, resolution action-list | 1-5 minutes | 20% | 60% | 20% |
Show |
| In system testing using Python based test driver | embedded processor | in-house, python | peer | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| - | - | XTensa | - | 11-30 seconds | - | - | - |
Show |
| We normally use python unittest | embedded c running on iss or compile to intel and tested on an emulator | source insight | they are reviewed by all the team in a meeting room. | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 60 | 20 |
Show |
| just verifing if requirents and specifications are respected | Street Light controllers | IAR Embedded Workbench | ... | 31-60 seconds | 40% | 10% | 50% |
Show |
| partially with cppUtest | arm platforms | iar, eclipse | indiavidually done | 5-30 minutes | 45 | 25 | 30 |
Show |
| YES | ballast | iar c compiler | - | 31-60 seconds | 10 | 10 | 10 |
Show |
| Some modules are tested with unit tests (using cpputest); the majority are tested by running the application on evaluation boards and, after that, on the real product. | 32bit ARM SoC with integrated 802.15.4 radio | IAR EW for ARM; debug printf on UART; 802.15.4 sniffer tools | I review the code myself when I need to refactor it | 1-5 minutes | 60% | 30% | 10% |
Show |
| Most manual testing. Some automated product testing | 32bit microcontrollers | IAR | - | Under 10 seconds | 40% | 30% | 30% |
Show |
| automatic test | microcontrollers | IAR system | - | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| I write some test code, but most of the tests are done using the debugger | Embedded / ARM 7, Cortex M4 | EMACS, IAR, Visual Studio | Manually hand it over to the reviewer | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 10 | 50 |
Show |
| 30% unit tests 70% manual tests | ARM Cortex M0 up to 64k | IAR, Eclipse | on demand if I see special risks | 5-30 minutes | 40% | 40% | 20% |
Show |
| Currently, I'm writing tests in JavaScript for a DALI (digital addressable light interface) library | ARM controllers | IAR Compiler, TestComplete | ? | 11-30 seconds | ? | ? | ? |
Show |
| After writing | Embedded | IAR,Subversion,Eclipse | Yes | 31-60 seconds | 60% | 40% | Can be long, can be short |
Show |
| I'm tend to automated the test. | Embedded ARM | GCC / IAR / VisualStudio | Refactor | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| by debuggung, by loggging data from inside the device | embedded | IAR-IDE | seldom | Under 10 seconds | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| system tests | µ-C, PC | IAR embedded, VS2012 | ? | 1-2 hours | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Because it is code near to hardware, i am testing if the whole system is reacting like it should. | ARM Cortex uC | IAR Compiler, tortoisesvn, Mantis Bugtracking | Mostly done with another developer before check in. | 31-60 seconds | 40% | 40% | 20% |
Show |
| daily | QNX system | QT Creator, Visual Studio, Momentics for QNX, Eclipse | Daily Code review | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 50 | 30 |
Show |
| basic unit testing | NA | Visua Studio/Eclipse | Have another person in the team to perform code review | 5-30 minutes | 40% | 50% | 10% |
Show |
| Simulator | QNX, Windows | QT, Visual Studio | Technical and Functional done by entire team | 1-2 hours | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| On target | QNX/ ARM | Visual C++, TI Code composer, MI | peer review and desk review | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| Trace logging, in-line debugging | Windows CE | Visual Studio, Eclipse | I like to analyze code for design and logic problems | Under 10 seconds | 80% | 15% | 5% |
Show |
| Compile time debugger, Third party code validation | Embedded | Eclipse, Visual Studio | Peer evaluation | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Write own test code | TI PICCOLO, Freescale imax | QNX, TI CCS | Formal code review with peers | 2-4 hours | 20 | 50 | 30 |
Show |
| Build/Run | X | QNX Buildchain, WinCE Buildchain, GNU Buildchain | Basic Peer Review | 30-60 minutes | 10 | 70 | 20 |
Show |
| Unit test - Test using debugger - test line by line and exercise all the paths using debugger, or unit test program Integration testing | Dispenser | QDE Momentics, Code Composer studio | Done for every change | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 35 | 25 |
Show |
| bespoke test code, automated test cases | Several different ones Windows CE based and also QNX based | Visual Studio 2005 onwards, QNX Mometix | Trained to do security code reviews | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Test on target verify behavior with debugger/logs and faking out stimuli where possible | Hard embedded (32-bit TI processor), ARM7 Frescale iMX6 using QNX RTOS | Eclipse IDE's provided by vendors (Momentix for QNX and Code Composer Studio for TI) | Peer reviews | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| write code and test it in pieces. | Really interested to know the unit testing. Heard a lot about it, but never seen it in action | debuggers mostly | I love to hear from people what they think of my coding | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| Code review | QNX, iMX6 ARM v7 | QNX SDK with IDE | Daily | Under 10 seconds | 70 | 20 | 10 |
Show |
| JUnit | Mac | Eclipse | prrq | 1-5 minutes | 60% | 20% | 20% |
Show |
| unit test scripts and self developed tools | CAN and Ethernet based system | QNX and Code Composer | Review with SMEs and team | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| Running PC-LIN, Tessy and by writing and execute test cases | Airbag module | WindRiver, eclipse. | We have them every time a change is introduced in the code | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Static and Dynamic Tests are run after development: for the first one we use MISRA PcLint tool; for the second we use TESSY tool. | Minim system, with sensors and actuators, and some other peripheral modules. | IBM Rhapsody for Architecture and Design, AUTOSAR tool for compliance. Windriver with Eclipse environment for code development. | We have three types of code Reviews: Inpection, Walkthrough and Screenning. The first one is the deepest Review (three or more partners), the last one is only for very low changes. | 1-5 minutes | 30 min | 1- 2 hrs | 1- 2 hrs |
Show |
| with Tessy and with system level tests. We currenly lack of real integration testing | Power PC, Renesas RH50 | Windriver | We do reviews | 1-5 minutes | 50% | 35% | 15% |
Show |
| By using Python Code, and simulation environments | Airbag Module | Windriver, WinIdea, Eclipse | They are not as good as they should be because of the lack of time | 30-60 minutes | 40% | 20% | 40% |
Show |
| Tessy, Small functional test. | Airbag controller | Rhapsody, Winidea, Doors, Winriver compiler, Tessy | No mandatory preparation time, most of the times the design is not available. | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 10 | 20 |
Show |
| Yes, I guess there are more efficient ways | Airbags | Debuggers, tests by tessy, lint. | We do them as part of the process development once we finish the implementation. | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 10 | 50 |
Show |
| I usually use test-driven development for new code and modifications. I write automated checks at multiple levels of abstraction. For true "testing", I use exploratory testing techniques. | Multiple | Depends on project, language, domain, etc. | Prefer continuous review using methods like pairing and mobbing. | 11-30 seconds | 40% | 50% | 10% |
Show |
| manually, adhoc | QNX, Arm7 | Momentics | Yes, regularly | 1-2 hours | 10% | 50% | 40% |
Show |
| Create test plans with the test team that cover all use cases we can think of, then go through them manually after writing the code. | Freestyle Dispenser, Embedded distributed architecture. | QNX Momentics IDE, Eclipse, TFS | Standing code reviews each day for 1-2 hours going over changes put in by all SW engineers on the project | 1-2 hours | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Manual unit test, QA, some Automation | QNX and Windows CE | QNX Momentics and Visual Studio | Sometimes missed | 1-2 hours | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| I painstakingly run manual tests again and again, thinking of every way I can to break the code, fix it, and retest. I get very good quality this way, but very labor intensive. | TI Piccolo and Freescale MX6 | TI CCS and QNX Momentics | Suggestions are to change implementations that already work | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| More of Integration testing. | QNX OS running on a dispenser with Qt code and Crank Storyboard and qml. | qt Creator and qnx momentics. | It is mostly Group Code review with cross functional teams involvement. | 5-30 minutes | 25% | 35% | 40% |
Show |
| Om a real target. | It is QNX based dispenser. | - | They are unproductive with enough preparation time. | 1-2 hours | 50% | 10% | 10% |
Show |
| parasoft | qnx | qt creator , qnx momentics | peer to peer ,team | 1-2 hours | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Cunit when possible. Failing that I normally write small toy programs to exercise algorithms in a debugger before testing them in the real system code. | X86 server running linux | gcc, gdb, eclipse, sublime text, HDE (our target simulator which runs on windows), real hardware. | We use code collaborator. It's excellent. Far better time/payoff tradeoff than paper Fagan inspections which I've used in previous jobs. | 5-30 minutes | 10 | 10 | 10 |
Show |
| Windows test environment(Win32 representation of the TM500)using signal injection. On target using real networks or network simulators. Also on target using signal injection(PXI). | tm500 capacity mobile | Telelogic,Visual Studio | Code Collaborator | 1-2 hours | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Anything from unit-test (rare as limited coverage) to full regression suite (if the change has system-wide impact) | Varies. Some of our code is targetted at host machines (usually Windows but on occasion Linux) but most of my work is targetted at a heterogenous embedded system with various processor types: PPC, TI DSP, x86. | MS Office and Sharepoint, Vim, our build system (which is built on top of SCons) supporting unit-tests, a non-real-time build running on Windows and the target build. CodeCollaborator is used for code reviews. In-house regression system. | Certain areas of the code are subject to these but, while they do catch some bugs, they tend to degrade to debates about academic points in many cases. | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| functional testing | Real Chassis | Slick Edit | Code Collaborator | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Development test by modifying values in the debugger, system test writing test scripts to exercise the new functionality. Regression test running old test cases on the target. | SLCA is effectively reads from a database evaluates the differences and then constructs messages to different layers based on "rules" | Slickedit, Visual C++ | Performed using code collaborator, are useful in finding issues some are skipped or never actually done to completion | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| ad-hoc module testing during development Overnight system regression | Various embedded targets, primarily x86 based running VxWorks or Linux | MSVC, gcc, Visual SlickEdit | Peer reviews including TA of whichever component is changed. | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| I test the product as a whole, no unit test | Windows | Visual Studio 2005 and 2010 | All code created is reviewed | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Mostly complete system tests, sometimes in an emulated Windows environment, then manual or automated test suites on target. | It's huge (well quite big), with varying configurations and CPU architectures | MSVS (emulation/debug), VxWorks, GCC and internal logging/trace tools | We use a web based tool - Code Collaborator | 5-30 minutes | 10% | 30% | 60% |
Show |
| Unit testing and target testing | TM500 is a multi UE test system which is used by mobile network vendors | Visual studio | Peer review | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 50 | 30 |
Show |
| Mostly using our simulation environment or the target. in early stages of development, when validating new code, I use hard-coded values, or modified versions of existing tests to spoof new features. | TI DSP | MSVS | I review team members code. My code does not often get reviewed | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 35 | 15 |
Show |
| Manual visual testing, System testing. | Windows PC/Linux application. | Visual studio | We do code review using code collaborator. | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| For unit testing, I usually export c functions into matlab, and write matlab test scripts to do the testing. We have a regression and validation team, with hundreds of system level tests that are run on a daily basis. | . | . | . | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| unit, integration, QA | Clojure web app | _ | Occurs during pull requests | Under 10 seconds | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| With an automated test suite through leiningen (clojure project). | Beaglebone Black/Raspberry Pi | emacs and command line build tools | Informal, ad-hoc. Post a pull-request in github and (possibly) ask someone else to review the code. No merging your own PR's. | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 45 | 15 |
Show |
| TDD often, but not always | N/A | vim, tmux | Often done individually in pull requests on GitHub, but occasionally we get together for group discussion around some code | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| On client projects I practice TDD to write any production code. On Arduino projects I just write some code, deploy it to the micro controller and check if it worked. | Micro Controllers | Currently just the Arduino IDE. | Currently I am the only one exposed to this code. (No code reviews) | Under 10 seconds | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| Test-first, including black box integration tests | Some sort of Linux | Vim, Jetbrains IDEs | Look for bugs, unhandled cases, inadequate testing, style concerns | Under 10 seconds | 30 | 60 | 10 |
Show |
| I unit test in Python using the unittest module. I've experimented with pytest. For C, I use Google Test and call my C code from C++. | x86 Windows is the most important, but we also support Mac and Linux. TI DSPs are an important target as well. | Visual Studio, Xcode, Code Composer | Code reviews are done using Swarm. 3-4 people are involved. | 30-60 minutes | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| TDD | OSX Yosemite | Mostly VIM, XCode for iOS, Trying out CLion for C++ | Pull requests that require multiple reviewers. Don't remind me, it hurts. | 1-5 minutes | 25% | 25% | 50% |
Show |
| I use a simulator or the HIL (hardware in loop) in our software lab most time. And I have to use cranes to capture the faults that cannot be duplicated in the lab. The modules communicate to each other via CAN bus (CANOpen). I trace the data on the CAN bus to look for anything abnormal. I use Lauterbach debugger for debugging. The unit testing is done by our team in India. | mobile cranes | GCC compiler, Tasking C/C++ compiler, Qt, Lauterbach with Trace32, dSpace (HIL) | We use Phabricator to do online review | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| project/product specific: most recently used catch cpp framework to test C code (x86 target); wrote custom harnesses for embedded products | depends on the project: DSP + FPGA, x86, ... | gcc variants, MSVC, custom | Code Collaborator, Perforce Swarm | 1-5 minutes | 80 | 10 | 10 |
Show |
| Visual Studio and/or GDB. | 32-bit Linux, usually an ancient version of Ubuntu; sometimes Windows | Visual Studio w/helpful plugins; emacs/GCC/GDB | I do wish I could get more of my colleagues to review my code! | 1-5 minutes | 15 | 7 | 8 |
Show |
| Beginning to do more automated unit testing w/GTest, after baseline CppUnit tests languishing for several years. Also, do manual unit test, incremental integration, and automated functional testing as well as SAT. | Telecom Tester - back-end/embedded C++; front-end GUI (Qt), sometimes two different processors | Git, Crucible, Jira | Crucible, usually involving 2-5 reviewers, with audience mix - those familiar/unfamiliar with code | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 30 | 10 |
Show |
| Manual testing during development, Integration testing, occasional unit testing. | MTS network testing unit, iOS App | Eclipse, OpenGrok, Git | I have code reviews for any code that I write. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Unit test | MTS | linux gnu | Fisheye Crucible | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Compile, run, fix problems, repeat. | Embedded Linux | Jira, Crucible, Custom-developed tools | Tedious | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| combination or unit testing and manual testing | Generally embedded platform(arm) sometimes pc or mobile | vim, git, opengrok, jenkins, jira, crucible (used to use eclipse) | code reviews are generally done through crucible and work pretty well | 5-30 minutes | 20% | 30% | 50% |
Show |
| debugger / break points, trial and error, print statements | Intel x86/x64, ARM A7 w/Linux, TI C64x, C66x | Visual Studio 2010, Sublime Text, Code Composer, Perforce | peer review sings off on changes | 5-30 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Regression tests | Handheld embedded tester for Telecom applications. | Kdevelop IDE | Reviews done using Crucible with Fisheye. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| unit tests, automated UI tests running on hardware, and manual testing of software running on our hardware. | several flavors of portable network test instruments. | vim | use fisheye to review changes with my development team. | 11-30 seconds | 45 | 35 | 20 |
Show |
| Mostly through debug statements put into the code. | home grown linux system with custom processor board. | gcc compiler, custom build and install scripts, sublime text editor, | Setup code reviews for all code changes. Can close when at least a couple people have reviewed and comments are addressed. | 11-30 seconds | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| edit, build, check feature manually on hardware. Want to do TDD, but haven't bit the bullet to pay the up front cost of learning how to do it in our system. | . | I primarily work in the terminal. vim, tmux. | Effective when used. Some of the veteran developers don't participate. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Large system tests done by a technician | A variety of safety products, legacy is mainly pic processors, future is hopefully ARM | Whatever is available | I have not had a code review at this company. | 31-60 seconds | 5% | 25% | 25% |
Show |
| My company does manual testing, I just started TDD in the last six months. | Microchip dsPics, ST Arm | MPLAB X, Keil uVision | Weekly. Historically concerned with bugs, but now we cover new code for feedback. Try not to have more than 5 engineers in a review, engineers split up by customers with a few rotating. | 11-30 seconds | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| Mostly verifying that the "happy path" works and poking around a bit to cover all the code "branches" and making sure that the boundaries are satisfied | Tcl or QT running on a linux test instrument | git, eclipse, jam, opengrok, fedora 17, jira | fisheye crucible | 1-5 minutes | 75 | 5 | 20 |
Show |
| In system debug and simulation | Custom hardware | Vendor provided tools | Performed based on who is doing the coding | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 10 | 30 |
Show |
| At run time I monitor the results to be in line with how they are written. | Difficult to find what is built where. | Sublime Text, Website designed to print results. | Spread across team members. Critiquing naming of anything to make it clear and concise to avoid comments. Elimination of function duplication. | 1-5 minutes | 30% | 60% | 10% |
Show |
| Benchtop Functional Testing. | Prototype headlight systems | IAR, KDS, CCS, CCES, MPLABX, LPCXpresso | Almost non-existent - there's a lack of knowledgeable firmware developers. | 31-60 seconds | 70 | 10 | 20 |
Show |
| Mainly functional testing, by running the code on the target hardware and manually check the behavior. | Embedded hardware | gcc/gdb, QtCreator | Reviews are "created" manually after submitting code. The developer is responsible for creating or not a review and for selecting the reviewers and observers. | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Mostly integration level testing. | Embedded software running on telecommunication test equipment. Major components are test application, user interface, and FPGA. | Eclipse for editing. GNU compilers. Atlassian tools to induce anguish and frustration. | We use Atlassian Fisheye + Crucible, one of their better tools, to distribute reviews to various engineers. Some take the time to review the code carefully. Most just scroll through it and approve it. | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| Unit tests, automated integration tests, manual testing | x86 kvm targets | Eclipse, maven, surefire | We use them rarely. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Project A: Running it on the target. Project B: Gtest + python test driver + manual testing. | A: Embedded arm multi-core, homegrown linux distro. B. Xeon server blade | vi(m), gnu toolchains, gdb. Jira, Jenkins | No enforced standards. FishEye and Crucible available. | 5-30 minutes | 70 | 20 | 10 |
Show |
| A combination of writing tests in GoogleTest and manual testing. | We cross compile for an ARM system. We compile an entire linux system for it. | Eclipse, gcc, gdb, GoogleTest | We use Fisheye + Crucible. | 5-30 minutes | 40% | 40% | 20% |
Show |
| Some Unit testing, Integration testing via C test program, Manual testing, Automated tests using homegrown tool called Lorna which uses REST API for issuing commands. | Linux based VMs, Linux based embedded | printf | Sometimes | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Component tests, product stack tests | Digital TV STBs, linux OS | Eclipse, gcc, | Depends on reviewer. Some useful, some focused on spelling & whitespace | 1-5 minutes | 5 | 25 | 70 |
Show |
| cUnit | linux | linux, eclipse, unit-testing, OOP, Design Partterns | Gerrit (git) done by at least 2 other memebers of the team (and 2 approvals needed before releasing) | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Our code is componentised and each component consists of a number of modules, so we test at module level (white box), component level (black box, exercising at API level) and at integration level (the complete collection of components that constitute our middleware). | Set Top Box | GNU toolchain, DDD, Source Insight, Klocwork, GIT, GCOV,CUNIT | All code is peer reviewed via Gerrit before delivery | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| As an org we have: - DMS test harness (integration tests at our DMS API) - Component Tests (integration and some unit tests) We have no efficient unit test environment on the host. | Set top boxes (less embedded these days and more Linux based with some special hardware) | CoVerity being rolled out for static analysis. Pretty standard set of dev tools but no hardware debuggers. | PEER review (using Gerrit as we move from ClearCase to GIT) | 1-2 hours | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Show |
| component tests, subsystem tests | digital tv set-top boxes | code editor (eclipse), some tools for viewing/analysing logs | they are mandatory, done using Review Board or Gerrit | 5-30 minutes | 20% | 40% | 40% |
Show |
| CUnit, try to write test code before writing the source code being tested. | Embedded linux on TV set-top boxes | Eclipse, Git, Gerrit, GNU tools for compilation, debugging etc. | Gerrit | 31-60 seconds | 5% | 10% | 50% |
Show |
| We have component tests for individual Fusion components, DMS tests for the whole middleware and full stack. | Set Top Box | Eclipse | All the code we write is reviewed, at the moment we use Gerrit | 31-60 seconds | 20% | 30% | 50% |
Show |
| Unit tests, component tests and then feature level tests. | Linux | gcc, make, cunit | Gerrit | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Produce new/use existing regression tests | . | Visual C studio | Desk reviews | 30-60 minutes | 25 | 50 | 25 |
Show |
| Windows emulation. Integration testing. | C66 TI DSP family and X86 | Visual C++ | Eventually they are long and hard to go through. | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| DEBUG Statements | TI and Intel | Visual Studio | Code Collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 30% | 40% | 30% |
Show |
| Mostly system based testing on target hardware. Correct operation is verified using a logging system built into the system. Due to the distributed nature of the system and the real time constraints of the system, debuggers are not available. Some parts of the system have a 'emulated environment build' available which runs on the local PC and allows the use of a debugger. However, I am involved in a part of the system for which this is not available. Additionally the above testing is performed on remote systems that are shared between developers so systems may not be available when you really want them to be. Some parts of the system have built in unit tests that can be run as part of a build. However, coverage of such tests is very far from complete. Where this is not adequate, or it takes too long or a debugger is required to determine the nature of a fault, add-hoc test harnesses are used to perform functional testing. | Distributed system consisting of a mix of X86 processor cards (PowerPC on older targets) and Texas C64/C66 dsp cards. Processors are interconnected using SRIO. | Compilers, SCONS | Code Collaborator. All code must be reviewed before committing/merging to top of tree. | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 50 | 30 |
Show |
| gcc -Werror -Wall debug statements to provide observable feedback that the code is doing the correct thing. | embedded linux sbc | gcc gdb emacs | Can't get one. | Under 10 seconds | 30 | 35 | 35 |
Show |
| In Host Development Environment which is a all-software version of the TM500 and 7100 products. Later verification on the hardware in RAV environment using debug logs. | TM500 load test mobile | Visual Studio, HDE | Code Collaborator | 5-30 minutes | 50% | 25% | 25% |
Show |
| Test harnesses, simulation, target test... Performed during dev stages rather than right at end. | TM500 | Visual C | they occur | 1-5 minutes | 35 | 50 | 5 |
Show |
| Using self written automated module test framework | PPC, X86 cards running VxWorks | Clearcase, Code Collaborator, Module Test framework, BeyondCompare, BoundsChecker, Slickedit | We use code collaborator for code reviews | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Unit test stubs, Host testing | TM500 | gnu | peer reviews | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| On the most part "developer testing", exercising paths in a new piece of code until I have confidence it fulfils the formal/informal requirements. In some cases this requires exercising the same piece of code on multiple operating systems. Some regression testing is also performed using our automation system. | PC based (WIN32/UBUNTU/FEDORA), TM500 target (VxWorks/Linux) | Various IDEs Eclipse(Juno), Visual Studio (2005/2010/2013), CodeCollaborator, | We use SmartBear's Code Collaborator tool to review all code changes. | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Workstation test environment, workstation debugger | Multi-processor embedded system | Slickedit, Telelogic Tau, Microsoft Visual Studio | All code reviewed prior to returning to code base using online review tools | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Developer testing is done using debugger in Microsoft Visual Studio. This is used in combination with product simulator TMA (Test Mobile Application) for windows. | Custom Hardware with many product variations and associated operating system | Visual Studio | Very good and detailed. | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Current and previous roles are architecture/management so very little coding in last 10 years | proprietary h/w with mixture of processors (FPGA, DSP, x86) | microsoft visual c | n/a in current role | 5-30 minutes | 2.5 | 5 | 5 |
Show |
| Using bespoke test code | Embedded Linux, vxWorks | Boundschecker, MS Visual C++ | We use Code Collaborator | 11-30 seconds | 60% | 20% | 20% |
Show |
| In a system simulator - takes ages to set it up and get it running. Sometimes problems are tested on target using logging to establish if it looks 'okay'. | Embedded DSP + more recently, Intel server | Visual Studio, Slickedit | We use Code Collaborator, though I have never used it. | 5-30 minutes | 10 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| Automated regression tests, some bits with cpputest. | Aeroflex TM500, PPC, x86, DSP | Eclipse, VS, gcc, gdb | Use code collaborator, works quite well | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| Self writen test harnesses | Windows, Embedded DSP | Visual Studio 2008 at present | Peer to peer | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| developer level testing which is more of sub-system test. Use debugger extensively to ensure testing specific leg of code by manipulating variables on run time. Then we move for target test where few end to end Test case being tried. | . | . | It has to be done as part of process and code collabrator being used for this. Reviews usually target adherence to coding standard and also check functional need/requirements. | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Self review - dry run. HDE testing - ad hock testing. Test spec for RAV team system tests - pass criteria. Follow up analysis of debug logs for code path execution and parameter values. | Embedded multi-processor system. | Visual studio, text editor (gVim), clearcase, command line tools | Those I conduct - focus on correctness of behavior and robustness of code, coverage of error checking. | 1-5 minutes | 25% | 15% | 20% |
Show |
| Windows based development environment | Windows, Target (TM500) | GNU, Visual Studio, SCONS | Code Collaborator | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| through tests | DSP | GNU and visual studio | code is reviewed by peers before commit | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 40 | 10 |
Show |
| Custom test functions and an external application that exercises the code. | Linux/Windows/vxWorks | Slickedit | Use Code Collaborator | 11-30 seconds | 70 | 20 | 10 |
Show |
| Test harness, IDEs, HDE | Linux, VxWorks real-time embedded | In-house (HDE), Boundschecker, App verfifier | Code Colaborator peer review based | 1-5 minutes | 33 | 33 | 33 |
Show |
| Input tests | Embedded C platforms | In Circuit Debuggers, IDEs, DebugPorts | bi-monthly | 11-30 seconds | 50% | 25% | 25% |
Show |
| Actual hardware in a bench top unit with input and load simulation running processors through IDE Debugger. | Currently Microchip PIC24, PIC32 or DSPic33 based hardware. Ethernet, CAN bus, USB, UART communications. Some systems have touchscreen GUI. | Microchip MPLAB IDE | Has been casual in the past but currently driving for more formal reviews. | Under 10 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Manual testing at work (ouch), unit tests at home. | Embedded device running uClinux, ATtiny parts at home | vim. Have used Visual Studio, CodeRed (Eclipse), Sublime Text, want to use CLion | I ask people to take a look and they ask me if it works :( | 31-60 seconds | ? | ? | ? |
Show |
| nUnit | For the purpose of this training, Microchip PIC | Visual Studio, MPLab | na | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Mostly at an integration level or module by module with a custom test application | Mostly embedded, ARM Cortex devices | IAR, GCC, CrossStudio, Visual Studio, CCS | Very ad-hoc and informal. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| In the past I primarily wrote in VHDL for FPGAs where we selectively tested code using testbenches. This is all fairly analogous to unit tests. More recently I've been writing C for microcontrollers, C++ for the ARM-A9 processors in the Zynq SoC, and Python for test equipment. I'm struggling to use GoogleTest and abstract away the hardware specifics of the different devices. | Primarily the Xilinx Zynq-7000 series SoC | Visual Studio, Eclipse, SDK (Xilinx's port of Eclipse), XCode, Komodo | We don't have code reviews. | 11-30 seconds | 20 | 50 | 30 |
Show |
| JTAG for difficult errors, trace for simple errors and unit test for regression testing. | Typically ARM Cortex-M, ARM cortex A, DSP devices. | ARM /Keil compiler, GCC | not so much | 1-5 minutes | 33 | 33 | 33 |
Show |
| yes, mostly manual, increasingly TDD | web | sublime editor | n/a | Under 10 seconds | 70 | 15 | 15 |
Show |
| Writing TUT tests and also automatic testing with calling products from NUnit-tests. | Currently Windows CE | Visual studio 2008 | Not so often used | 1-5 minutes | %40 | %40 | %20 |
Show |
| Drivers are tested with small test applications | ARM CortexA8, NAND/eMMC, lpDDR, cameras, Wifi,USB Host/devices, I2C, SPI, SDHC, headless | Visual Studio/Platform bulder, Eclipse for ARM gcc | Non existent | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 10 | 40 |
Show |
| I test-drive if it's gonna matter. If it matters more, I test-drive more carefully. | no idea, Arduino or RPi maybe? | git, vim, make, Eclipse, clang | Reviewing afterward is too late. I missed the decisions as they were being made (or someone else missed mine). I prefer pairing. | Under 10 seconds | 40 | 50 | 10 |
Show |
| First Debugger and printf. Writing code modules to stress functions in my application. Later during develop process via NUnit and scripts stressing the application via communication channels. End face via logging when complete system is stressed. | Latest HW is using a ARM11 based controller and OSE RTOS. | Lauterbach debuger and gnu complier. | Optional to ask a colleague for help... | 31-60 seconds | 20% | 40% | 40% |
Show |
| Mostly manually. | Total station for surveyors. Measures angles and distance with high accuracy. Arm AT91m42800, OSE, WinCE. | Visual Studio, GNU make, GCC, AxD debugger, Sublime, Eclipce, Emacs, Putty, GIT, SVN, CVS, ClearCase, | Some companies have more of them (defined in the development process). Now i usually have them on request basis. And i prefer in-pair programming or i think its called extreme programming. | 1-5 minutes | 25% | 25% | 50% |
Show |
| Started using cpputest for new modules using simulator in IAR. | Company procuded embedded device using kinetis micro controller. It is installed into cars. | IAR compiler | We use a web based system called upsource. This integrates with SVN and allows in-line comments.. | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 10 | 30 |
Show |
| Unit tested. Programming in pairs whenever possible & sensible | Cloud Server | JetBrains IDEs | Pair Programming: the instant code review. Another pair code reviews Github PRs | Under 10 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| We do unit tests in CUnit, We have developed a test framework in Python for integration tests. However these things are only used by the team I belong to. The other teams do only manual testing for their parts. Total system testing is only manual. | Cortex-A9 CPU | GreenHills Integrity OS and compiler | The reviews focus on high level though of solution. We lag behind when stressed. | 11-30 seconds | 15 | 50 | 35 |
Show |
| mostly manual, some automatic tests on a higher level. Automatic system level tests and integration tests where the target system is accessed from a PC. PC side runs NUnit but the tests are not what is normally called unit level tests. | All are ARM based, the one I use most Freescale ARM i.mx35 (ARM11) running Enea OSE RTOS. Some work on a i.MX51 (Cortex-A8) with WinCE | GCC toolchain, eclipse as editror, debugging in Lauterbach Trace32 using JTAG | we do not perform them. I tried several years ago but there where no interest, but I think/hope this is changing | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| Small things are driven in with unit tests. Acceptance-level tests (written in Gherkin, driven by Cucumber) are written to demonstrate feature completeness to the customer. | Currently, its cross-platform desktops | IntelliJ, vim, QtCreator, Jenkins | Currently we use GitHub | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| TDD, with exploratory testing before handoff to QA. | Tomcat servers running in AWS | IntelliJ | Usually fairly short, examining test coverage as much as code quality. | Under 10 seconds | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Show |
| Partial unit testing and manual tests | ARM Cortex-M4 | IAR | Trialing Upsource, | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Manually | Cortex M4 | IAR | Online | 11-30 seconds | 60 | 30 | 10 |
Show |
| Execute functionality with diagnostics | It's a vehicle installed unit with a a Kinetis K70 (ARM Cortex-M4) processor and sensors | IAR | We currently use Upsource. All new blocks of functionality are reviewed. | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Manual and semi automatic test programs | ARM processors | Visual Studio, Platform builder | Nonexistent | Under 10 seconds | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| NUnit, Test appliactions, debugging, TUT, ... | X86, ARM7, STM32, ... | VS2008, ... | - | 30-60 minutes | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| Unit tests. End-to-end functional tests. | Custom linux comminications appliances. | Linux development tools, GIT, CVS, etc, etc | Peer reviews within the dev team | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| A lot. | Web/Clojure | IntelliJ, Emacs | Pair when possible | Under 10 seconds | 49 | 49 | 2 |
Show |
| Functional regression testing. We started on module with TDD but discontinued using because not enough people are on board. We also use LINT. | Water heater user interface and safety code | Freescale/NXP Kinetis Developement System (Eclipse based) | We use CodeCollaboarator on a daily basis. Several people review every piece of code generated. | 11-30 seconds | 40% | 30% | 30% |
Show |
| Unit tests, manual integration tests, a system test group. | Various embedded platforms -- from embedded linux down to tiny bare metal microcontrollers depending on the application. | Various - Yocto, Keil, various IDE's provided by chip vendors, various debuggers, etc. Like the target systems -- it depends on the application. | Using a Github style code review during the pull request. Currently no checklists / requirements on the code review. Seem to be taken seriously and done well. Much more focused on functionality than boilerplate. | 31-60 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| gtest unit tests (that often look more like integration tests), nightly runs of our sample apps, QA-run regression tests (cucumber). | I mainly focus on automotive head units, but the SDK I work on runs on desktops, in servers, on phones, etc. | MS dev studio, p4, araxis merge | they happen ad hoc at the discretion of the developer. as a senior guy, I am often the reviewer - sometimes offline, sometimes via shared desktop. sometimes we have group-level reviews. | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| mixture of GoogleTest, manual testing and formal QA. | multiple target platforms from embedded class to server class hardware. Windows, mac, & linux based systems. | Visual Studio + homebrewed build system | infrequent | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 10 | 40 |
Show |
| unit tests, functional tests | a variety of linux-based systems | gnu tools, autotools, cmake | Use bitbucket review board system | 11-30 seconds | 45 | 15 | 40 |
Show |
| Primarily an automated regression test suite with some unit tests. | Linux fgor product and multiplatform for open source version | gcc and related open source tools | typically one person gives a quick lookover after eature is complete :-( | 31-60 seconds | 20 | 70 | 10 |
Show |
| If it compiles, it ships! :) | Linux web apps | VS, Sublime Text | Commercially, I always pair or mob up | Under 10 seconds | 30 | 10 | 60 |
Show |
| Manual test fixtures | Embedded displays and controllers | Eclipse, Visual Studio | We use Code Collaborator as a team | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| C# is my current language. For this I'm using TDD, BDD and above mentioned test harnesses. | Desktop applications. Previous work on ARM, TI's TMS320C54x,C55x series and Qualcomm's QDSP5 processor. | Nowadays primarily Visual Studio. | On-the-fly - we discuss in the mob while coding. | 11-30 seconds | 90 | 5 | 5 |
Show |
| Unit tests, integration tests and automated UI tests. | Windows desktop | Visual Studio 2015, SQL Server 2016 | We code in groups ("mobs"), so code is constantly peer reviewed by 1-5 other developers at all times. | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 45 | 15 |
Show |
| Using printing debugging messages via UART. And JTAG debugger like ICD3. | Microchip CPUs and MPUs. | Microchip IDE and Micorsoft Visual Studio | Myself code reviewing | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Unit tests, Integration (UI) tests, Smoke tests | Web applications, embedded SW for controllers | Visual Studio | Mob programming code review is donw on the go, no official code review | Under 10 seconds | 50 | 45 | 5 |
Show |
| TDD | Microchip PICMZ32 and PICMX32 | MPLAB-x, Visual C 2008, SlickEdit, GTK, PC-Lint, source monitor | None | 31-60 seconds | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| We use Visual Studio's test tools with Resharper installed and providing some extensions. In addition to unit tests we run CodedUI tests which target the user interface of the application. | primary-Desktop, embedded isn't my primary | Visual Studio | We Mob program - code is under constant review | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| TDD, BDD | Sprinkler control systems | Visual Studio, Visual Studio Code, Atom, Note Pad ++ | Mob Programming | 31-60 seconds | 85 | 85 | 5 |
Show |
| With a simulator and with test code. | Microchip microcontroller | Microsoft Visual C | General reviews | Under 10 seconds | 60 | 30 | 10 |
Show |
| using mstest or nunit | usually x86 | visual studio, vs code, notepad++, resharper | using mob programming, there is frequent questioning about direction and implementation of code which necessarily requires explanation and sometimes justification. | 1-5 minutes | 33.3% | 33.3% | 33.3% |
Show |
| Run debug session and see if it works. | Microchip 8/16/32 cpus | MPLABX and XC compilers | We don't normally do that. | 1-5 minutes | 70% | 15% | 15% |
Show |
| Old fashion way | PIC microcontrollers | Microchip's tool chain | None | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Its mainly running the end application and checking if gives desirable results. | Routers and switches. | GDB | peer code review. | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| glib unit tests, which are really more like functional tests | CentOS, C, GLib | git, vi, autotools | Reviewboard | 31-60 seconds | 33 | 33 | 33 |
Show |
| Unit tests | N/A | Emacs | They get reviewed by 2-3 people and usually address bugs, naming conventions, and coding styles. | 31-60 seconds | 40% | 20% | 40% |
Show |
| List use cases and corner cases. Create test plan, run test plan. I also step through code using JTAG and/or remote debugger. | Industrial Ethernet NXP Platform | VS 2015, Kinetis, TIA, Logix 5000, Android Studio, etc. | Use Code Collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 25 | 30 | 45 |
Show |
| single-stepping | it's a scanner. What is there to talk about? | Greenhills | We use code collaborator. | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 10 | 50 |
Show |
| If hardware is unavailable I create unit test stubs in Visual Studio to simulate I/O and write the actual embedded code in visual studio. When hardware becomes available I port it to the target embedded platform. On the target platform I do further testing in a JTAG or BDM debugger or emulator. I have used CppUTest as well. | ARM RISC processors | Multi IDE and Visual Studio 2013 | Use Code Collaborator | 5-30 minutes | 10% | 20% | 15% |
Show |
| on the target device using Android Studio. | Android based display | Android SDK / Android Studio | NA for current project | 31-60 seconds | 20 | 70 | 10 |
Show |
| Depends on the project at hand, for newer projects we generally try to use a TDD approach or at least add unit tests. For legacy code, we try to add unit tests for new code when feasible, yet we still only have functional tests for most of the code, if there are tests at all. This means a lot of code requires hardware to be available for tests to be executed, and since the hardware is expensive this is a scarce resource. Thus many tests are postponed to "release test periods". | Multiple brands of hardware security modules supporting custom firmware loading. 32 bit PowerPC or ARM, ~2MB-128MB RAM depending on brand. On-target debugging is not available. | Visual Studio for non-hardware specific code, software emulation and executing tests. Vendor specific toolchains (mostly GCC). Make, ant, jenkins for build automation. | We use code reviews for most of the developed code including tests. The primary purpose is to share knowledge of the source code and to spot misunderstandings. We try to rely on tests for finding subtle bugs. | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Manual Tests during development and manual tests based on test lists before each release. | Microcontrollers, often ARM Cortex M, often STM32xy | IAR EWARM | Usually after first draft of concept (for each module), then concept just before coding, then after coding (with one peer). Frequency depends on work load of the company. | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| A combination of printf statements to a serial port and watching LEDs flash on real hardware / dev board. | Siemens C167 and more currently Xilinx Zynq (with twin ARM A9 cores) | A concoction of Eclipse / GCC provided by Xilinx. Also Visual Studio for simple apps to send commands over a serial port | Peer reviews using a compare package and tracing back to the PBI requesting the work. There is no formal checklist, we generally use engineering judgement | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Unit Tests created using TDD automatically executed on code commit. Semi Automated functional tests. | vxWorks, linux or bare metal | gcc, eclipse, gcov, jenkins, CODESYS... | Client defined. My preference is to use static analysis and then review tool e.g. stash, code collaborator, GitHub. Pair programming could be great, only done a very little. | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| I like to write small code to test any functions first. | ? | Visual Studio, grep, beyond compare | ? | 31-60 seconds | 20 | 20 | 60 |
Show |
| I test the code on the hardware development board and units, using JTAG interface. For unit testing, I perform boundary and memory checks, use 'assert' statements whereever appropriate for a graceful reset of the system. | ARM based scanner development system | Greenhills debugger | Use code collaborator for peer code reviews | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| JTAG emulator, logic analyzer, oscilloscope, debug logs. | Embedded micro-controller, sometimes with sometimes without embedded RT OS | Greenhills, IAR | Code Collaborator. I focus on finding unintended side effects | 1-5 minutes | 45% | 45% | 10% |
Show |
| define a test plan and unit test against it a lot of times by writing test code. Then, after feature is integrated to the system, an 'integration' test plan is executed. We also have automated regression tests which is very extensive and it is used as acceptance test before it is given to the independent test and validation team | ARM based embedded systems sometimes with a network stack present | eclipse, spyder, visual studio, green hills multi IDE | take place very often | 31-60 seconds | 20% | 20% | 60% |
Show |
| Developer testing against requirements before passing onto test engineers | Xilinq Zynq | Eclipse IDE; GCC compilers/linkers; Xilinx Jtag debugger | Peer Review with colleague | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| on hardware | 1GHz CPU, DDR, DMA, caches | Green Hils | Code Collab | Under 10 seconds | 5 | 2 | 5 |
Show |
| test plans, debug statements, debugger, unit tests | direct to micro, typically micro-controllers with onboard memory, communication peripherals (uarts, dma, i2c) | debugger and associated IDE, uart, text editor | typically a few individuals, hosted on web interface | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| on PC and on real platforms | embedded systems | VC++ | peer code reviews | Under 10 seconds | 60% | 25% | 15% |
Show |
| I work in the TnV group and so most of my code is tested internally within the group | windows 7,8,10, | visual studios, notepad++ | code reviews are conducted at regular intervals in development of code | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Test first and test often | Windows and Linux systems | VisualStudio, PyCharm, notepad++ | I feel they are a waste of time | Under 10 seconds | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| Functional test. Stress testing. Engineering tests that go over corner cases. Then separate T&V group. | Embedded processors. | Stuff | How do I put a whole process on one line? | 1-2 hours | 10% | 10% | 10% |
Show |
| Automation testing based on test application | embedded ARM | Greenhills, IAR, Visual studio | we use collaborator tool from smartbear | 11-30 seconds | 50% | 25% | 25% |
Show |
| follow engineering test plans currently in place, also adhoc | embedded system with different processor platforms (ARM based) | GHS MULTI | code collaborator sucks | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Xcode profiling tools | Barcode scanners, Mobile devices (iOS) | Xcode, MULTI IDE | We use collaborator to share modified files. Reviewers leave comments and then we address the comments. | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| I am yet to start working with the code. | National Instruments CompactRIO platform, (ARM processors and other controllers in the future) | National Instruments LabVIEW platform | Haven't had any yet | 1-5 minutes | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Show |
| Pragmatically with system tests or with the debugger or some specific sw tests | Very versatile depends on the specific project. Arm, pic, psoc, msp430... | IAR Workbench, Ultra Edit, MPLAB, PSoC Creator, Code Composer, etc | With a colleague. We review only difficult or complicated parts of a sw. Sometimes we use checklists for the reviews. These contain systematic points like control all switch cases for the breaks, etc. | 31-60 seconds | 70 | 15 | 15 |
Show |
| The most of the testing done is on a system level but some of the tests are low level unit tests. The test are automated an runs in our build system. | The target system is an instrument running firmware multiple processors platforms written in C/C++. Clients are .NET applications and C++ running on windows desktop systems. | Visual Studio 2008. | We are working on improving the code review process. Most of the work is not reviewed. | 1-2 hours | 30 | 60 | 10 |
Show |
| TDD & ATDD as much as possible | Existing embedded projects created with code generation tools and needing to use IAR in order to compile them. Very painful! | Vim, Eclipse, Visual Studio, IAR, GCC | pairing is usually my code reviews | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 50 | 10 |
Show |
| Using the Unit testing framework like gtest | Omap5 with QNX | Qnx IDE | Yes, do the code reviews | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| Functional verification at time of code implementation. | QNX Nuetrino ARM | Eclipse IDE/QNX Momentics | Peer code reviews using Code Collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 35 | 15 | 50 |
Show |
| NUnit, tut | Windows CE | Visual Studio | Sporadic | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Mostly through the nunit framework, for regression testing and to develop new functionality | ARM, WinCE | VS2008 | We have minimum to no code review. | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| Using nunit tests and manual tests. | Inbedded ARM cpu with an RTOS. | gnu compiler and eclipse | Usually no reviews | 1-5 minutes | 40% | 20% | 40% |
Show |
| I have not done any serious coding for a about 3 months. Last coding was DSP code for a cam laser tracking system. Static logic tests on this code was done by cutting out important code snippets, putting it into a class and feeding it with structures or objects with pre setup data. Dynamic testing were done by injecting virtual targets into live target and field test using lots of trace code | Blackfin DSPBF52x, IMX51 | Visual studio 2015, 2008, Visual DSP | no formal ones | 5-30 minutes | 40% | 30% | 30% |
Show |
| Unit testing using TUT and mocking with hippomocks. I also write higher level functional testing using nUnit. nUnit interfaces with our product as the users tablet would. | Embedded system, iMX51 platform. | SVN, Visual studio 2008 | We don't do code reviews often. When we do them they are quite informal, mostly someone just has a look at the SVN changes or you go through them together. | 31-60 seconds | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| Automated testing (NUNIT) Manual testing | Embedded FW on a Windows CE OS | Visual Studio, NUNIT, Team City | Nearly non-existant | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Mostly manually. | Arm11 | rt-os arm, eclipse | Non | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| writing a unit test component | QNX platform | EA and qnx momentics IDE | na | 1-5 minutes | na | na | na |
Show |
| Mostly debugger. However, I write it extremely cautiously with a very pessimistic / defensive attitude. I still generate an occasional bug and have little way to prevent others from injecting errors after release; #1 gripe: careless programmers. | Many. Some embedded, some more like PCs. | Various IDEs / 3rd party tool-chains. GCC is most prevalent here. | I will probably comment on every changed line. I am a pretty good bug finder. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 - Verification time. |
Show |
| Manual functional testing | QNX6.5/6.6 ARM | Eclipse/QNX Momentics | Peer reviewed using Code Collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 30 | 60 |
Show |
| qt simulator and test hardware | ford provided test hardware qnx based | qt creator, qnx momentics, git repo | jerrit code review | 30-60 minutes | 50 | 10 | 40 |
Show |
| local test | customer HW, VM | Momentics, Netbeans, Android | Code Collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 10 | 50 |
Show |
| Black box | QNX | QDE | Collaborator | 5-30 minutes | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Show |
| using stubs and test applications | QNX OS | QNX IDE | I use Code collaborator for reviews | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Code is getting tested as part of integration testing. | armv7 | QNX Momemtics, Eclipse, Android Studio | Using Collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| using debugger to execute all negative paths | RH850 | GHS MULTI | collaborator tool | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| test scripts | -- | Qt Creator | gerrit, code collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 65 | 15 | 20 |
Show |
| Mainly integration testing or sanity testing. Limited / No unit testing. | Arm based running QNX OS. | compilers/linkers, Debuggers, post mortem analysis (gdb), profilers, Eclipse based IDE (QNX Momentics), | use code collaborator to review code. | 5-30 minutes | 50% | 20% | 30% |
Show |
| We perform module level testing, Integration testing and Functional testing. We have now initiated unit testing using GMock | QNX | QNX Momentics | We use code collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 50% | 30% | 20% |
Show |
| Automated Testing, Integration Testing | QNX, Android | Visual Studio, QDE | We use Code Collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 25% | 25% | 50% |
Show |
| Normally I don't do, may be Unit Test sometimes | QNX | Visual studio, QNX IDE | Don't undergo very frequently | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Some level of unit and mostly integration testing | QNX, ARM | QDE, RTC, GTest | Moderate | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| writing my own simulator code | C++ | QNX IDE | Code Collaborator | 5-30 minutes | 50% | 40% | 10% |
Show |
| We test out final software against a software verification document which is intended to test all functionality in the extremes of possible configurations. | Custom board based around Analog Devices Blackfin 536 Processor | Analog Devices VisualDSP++ | Limited resources don't always allow code review. Doesn't happen very often. | 31-60 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Using execution or debug mode of the IDE running on the target system. | 8 bit microcontrollers from MicroChip | MPLABX from Microchip, PC-Lint, | 1-on-1 typically for small changes, independent reviewer for whole projects | 11-30 seconds | 45 | 35 | 20 |
Show |
| Functional tests, system testing, stepping through code. (aka, did it break? no? then it's working) | ARM Cortex-M3 | IAR EWARM | None | Under 10 seconds | 20 | 20 | 60 |
Show |
| Manually test features of the hardware. Have external tools parse debug log output for specific entries. | 8bit MCU / 32 Bit ARM | AVRStudio, LPCExpresso | One team member checks in changes, requests other team members to review the SVN revisions. They offer comments, changes are needed and the process repeats until everyone agrees on the changes. | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 25 | 35 |
Show |
| Depends what part of my code I am testing(Communication, motion,temperature,servo,hours,state machine) for each of these I have deferent test-bench written in Labwindows | Embeded | Keil,Labwindows,C# | Mostly done when I have question and cannot solve or debug the software | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 60 | 10 |
Show |
| n/a | ARM, PIC, C8051 | IDEs | peer review | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Test my code??! What! :) | PIC32, and possibly ARM in the future. | Eclipse | Currently informal, but moving to Mercurial so they can be more formal. | 11-30 seconds | 70% | 10% | 20% |
Show |
| code review, static code analysis, functional module level test, system level test | medical instrument | IAR | Use code collabrator | 1-2 hours | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| Manually | TI64x processor on a small device, and a Xeon x86 in a rack mount product | Eclipse, QTCreator, Visual Studio, Cygwin, Notepad++ | Online using Code Collaborator. Generally, submit to depot, then start a review. | 5-30 minutes | 15% | 25% | 60% |
Show |
| My team currently uses CppUTest, and listening tests. We also have a dedicated QA team, who perform regression tests. I'm a new hire, so learning CppUTest is definitely in my training list. | Windows, Mac, Linux systems, and TI C6xxx DSP processor embedded systems | Visual Studio 2010. CCStudio | My team uses Swarm reviews. So when I modify a file, Swarm is able to identify and visualize the difference, and my team uses that to review code. | 31-60 seconds | 33 | 33 | 33 |
Show |
| Write unit tests as we develop. Write Python regression tests after. | Windows 64-bit | Visual Studio, PyCharm | A team of 5 reviews the code via a collaborator tool. | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 20 | 60 |
Show |
| Manual testing; system-level testing (some automation); some unit testing with internal test framework | x64 based Linux; TI DSP on DSP/BIOS os | Visual Studio (w/ Visual Assist addon); vim; cmake; cygwin; TI Eclipse-based IDE | We use code collaborator for almost all checkins. We allow a day for code reviews to be completed before checking in. | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| Manual plus basic unit tests | Embedded with custom FPGA | Linux based C development, Perforce, VIM and other diff tools. | I don't have a good eye for catching errors through code review. | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Manually or with simple python scripts | 16 bit uC (24H & 33E), runs an OBD-II stack | MPLab, C30 | Manual, one-on-ones, don't happen as often as they should | 11-30 seconds | 20 | 50 | 30 |
Show |
| Through a set of unit tests and regression tests. | Windows, Linux, OSX 32 and 64 bit | Visual Studio, Visual Studio Code, GNU | Code reviews are performed by the team when developing features. | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| TDD, in the future would like to do BDD, integration testing, and perhaps Design By Contract | Ruggedized, cartridge-based power system that delivers maximum reliability and flexibility over a typical 72 hour mission, at a weight savings to the soldier of more than 65% compared to conventional lithium-ion batteries | Previously AVR JTAGICE, Atmel Studio, transitioning to STM32 and IAR IDE | Casual, sometimes rushed, sometimes too detailed. | 31-60 seconds | 35 | 50 | 15 |
Show |
| Run it on the target and perform use cases | embedded infotainment running QNX os | Eclipse IDE | Usually 2-3 people review the code | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| google unit test | NA | QNX | NA | 1-2 hours | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Automated unit test. Manual test. | QNX | QNX | Code Collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 |
Show |
| Usually in the target system with PC to simulate pieces of the system that are not present | VP4 Radio (for a vehicle) | RTC | Code Collaborator is used. | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| We have started using G-Mock in Sync and previously we used to have Unit testing at a developer level and archive the results/review to ensure code quality. | QNX6.5 based system | QNX6.5, RTC, G-Mock | Using code colloborator | 1-5 minutes | I am coding close to 0 in the past 3 years but focus mostly on Architecture and Project management | 0 | 0 |
Show |
| CLI Test cases, Visual Review, Run Through Code (logically) with predetermined input parameters ( in-boundary params, good values, out of bound params) | MQX OS with GDB capability | gcc, debug logs, jtag | Code Reviews are done in process, and many defects are found in reviews ( but not all) | 1-5 minutes | 60 ( Design 40 and 20 code) | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| TestAgent | QNX | RTC QNX IDE | We use We use Code Collabborator for the revies | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| By writing functional test cases. | Embedded systems | QNX/Linux ARM tool chains | Code collaborator | 30-60 minutes | 40% | 30% | 30% |
Show |
| We do Interface testing, Integration testing and Functional testing | QNX | QNX Momentics, GDB Debugger | Code Collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 50% | 25% | 25% |
Show |
| test client, GMOCK/GTEST | QNX | QDE | Use code collaborator and checklist for review | 5-30 minutes | 40% | 30% | 30% |
Show |
| using ICE, Hardware in the loop | Freescale | consol make | experience as lead | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Integration testing, Functional testing | ARM | QNX momentics | We use code collabrator to review the code changes | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 10 | 10 |
Show |
| Unit test and debugging tools | J6 processor with QNX | QNX momentics IDE | NA | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 60 | 10 |
Show |
| Manually doing unit tests after implementing changes/new features. | not yet defined | Visual Studio, Borland Turbo C++ builder, Embarcadero RAD | Usually do code review within our development team (3-4 developers) | 31-60 seconds | 40 % | 30 % | 30 % |
Show |
| Step by step | ARMs | IAR, Eclipse, NetBeans, Keil | I don't have experience with reviewing other people's code for production | 11-30 seconds | 40% | 30% | 30% |
Show |
| with debugger: monitoring memory, variables. Functional testing without debugger. | embedded platforms mostly based on micro-controllers and DSP's | Code composer, Atmel studio, Visual DSP++ | x | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| 1) Unit testing, but not methodologically and systematically. 2) SQA department | ARM Cortex M7; Running Quantum Leaps | GCC, JTAG debuggers | Code reviews tends to discuss personal coding style rather than reviewing code. | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 10 | 60 |
Show |
| Manualy | Linux | gcc, netbeans | / | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| regresion | / | / | / | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 60 | 10 |
Show |
| Mostly ad-hoc in the current project. Used plain "hand made" functions as unit test harness at function level testing. In Visual studio I used MS built-in testing framework a couple of times. | Embedded linux | Netbeans IDE, remote build server (gcc based), svn | Using Fisheye/Crucible | 31-60 seconds | 33 | 33 | 33 |
Show |
| Component testing mostly, very little unit testing. | multiple platforms (STB) | gcc and vim | gerrit | 1-5 minutes | 20% | 40% | 40% |
Show |
| CUnit, CppTest | Embedded Linux STB | Eclipse | Gerrit, all team members receive the review | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Component, Full stack, Continuous Integration. I've recently been introduced to the CPPU test framework. | set top box software for satellite broadcasters. Very large code base. | git, gerrit, eclipse, sublime, vim, continuous integration, jenkins, coverity | We use gerrit. Sometimes pair programming. | 30-60 minutes | 30 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| Functional level validation with manual and scripts to cover code paths. | Settop boxes | GCC, GDB, Python scripts, vim, cscope, source insight, eclipse | Usually done through Gerrits and other peer level reviews | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| A combination of: unit test - newer initiative to use CppUTest to test new features component test - historical test harness, large mock harness around component in test integration test - creating new standalone test cases in C full stack manual testing - exercising customer usecases with end to end intrastructure | cross compile from build server(s) to STB H/W | mainly | Gerrit | 1-5 minutes | 15 | 50 | 35 |
Show |
| Full stack testing is run in Jenkins, there re approximately 70 testsscript driven tests than run on all flavors of the build (builds being production, release debug debug). Depending on a go/no test it gets delivered to the customer. Typically there are 3or 4 builds a day. The process takes about 3hours to complete. | Linux | source insight | We use gerrit for code revies it has to be plussed +2 to deliver | 2-4 hours | 5 | 30 | 65 |
Show |
| Just starting to use AceUnit | Various ARM based microcontrollers (M0, M4), Coldfire based ASICs | Keil, Visual Studio, Eclipse | Jira - Crucible - the coding process requires a review before a merge back to the trunk | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Manual | Microcontrollers, Windows | Keil, Visual Studio | Lacking | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| I don't as I have just recently started to learn programming. | . | Visual Studio | Haven't had one yet | 1-5 minutes | . | . | . |
Show |
| Beta testing finished code to find bugs. Not ideal. | High-level GUI on PC, down to low-level, real-time embedded C. | Visual Studio, Keil | Organized via Crucible in conjunction with Fisheye (Atlassian) | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| I have been a proponent of unit testing, but never had a clear framework or training on how to go about it. Since working at Cirque, I have been starting up a new repository that was meant to be flexible and the only repository of our code. To make that more manageable, I've been writing unit tests all along whenever I ported something to this repository. | Chiefly embedded micro-controllers | Visual Studio, Kiel (ARM-based projects), Various versions of Eclipse as put out by microcontroller vendors. | We use the Atlassian tool Crucible to manage code reviews for non-trivial changes. | 31-60 seconds | 55% (including planning/diagramming) | 30% | 15% |
Show |
| Manually. | Windows OS | Microsoft Visual Studio | They are slow and painful. | 11-30 seconds | 70% | 10% | 20% |
Show |
| Test if it does what I meant for it to do. | embedded microcontrollers with lots of human and computer real time input | lots | they are pro forma and a waste of time (they happen too late in the process) | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 10 | 30 |
Show |
| GUI interaction | Win 10 | Visual Studio | na | 11-30 seconds | na | na | na |
Show |
| Manually compare to expected values | Windows 10 | Visual Studio 2013 for C# | internal use software so colleagues tell me if there is a bug. | 31-60 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| O-scope, logic analyzer, breakpoints, watch lists, throw-away stimulus codd | various ARM micros | GNU, Keil, other vendor IDEs | knowledgeable peers | Under 10 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Ad-hoc, primarily. | Automotive Infotainment | Eclipse, Emacs, gcc, gdb, python | All check-ins must be reviewed. We use an online tool called Code Collaborator | Under 10 seconds | 75 | 5 | 20 |
Show |
| get it running in the production environment, analyze the log | QNX , uITRON | eclipse, gcc , jdk, rtc, svn | face to face, discuss about the changes | 1-5 minutes | 20% | 50% | 30% |
Show |
| write test by myself | Android | Android studio | medium | 1-2 hours | 50 % | 25 % | 25 % |
Show |
| Manually | Android | Terminal, IDE and Hammer | Good | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 70 | 80 |
Show |
| Most of the time I mock input from client/server to middleware and verify the output in logs/prints. Since there is a third-party dependency on lower layers, most of the times it is difficult to mock the device behavior. | Automotive embeded systems | QNX IDE, Enterpeise Architect, UML | PASA code review guidelines using collaborator | 5-30 minutes | 40% | 40% | 20% |
Show |
| Using log output | QNX | QNX momentics | using code collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 30 | 60 |
Show |
| Using Debugger , breakpoints and from Logging. | Target system based on TI chipset ( j6) and QC S820 ( Os QNX,And android respectively) | QDE , Android studio | We have a process of 2 code reviews ( using tools code collaborator and geriit) | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Test each portion of the code as I write it | Amplifier | debugger, serial logs | Relevent developers checking changes | 1-5 minutes | 45 | 20 | 35 |
Show |
| Manual testing | ARM | RTC | Simple, parameter checking, error handling, overflow, resource handling | 1-5 minutes | 50% | 30% | 20% |
Show |
| Test stubs and simulations | HU | RTC, GDB, Source Insight, USB Sniffer, ValueCAN | Short, in-person to discuss all impacting usecases | 11-30 seconds | 3 | 2 | 2 |
Show |
| I unit test by adding test stubs and faking the events. | QNX | QNX | use code collaborator for review. | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| self | Android/QNX | Android Studio, QT editor | gerrit | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Manual testing develop -> flash it in hardware and check. | QNX and MFS | QDE and GCC | - | 11-30 seconds | 30 mins | 2 hr | 1hr |
Show |
| Send some input to it and see if I get the expected output. If not, I'll step through the code to see where it went wrong. | Microchip PIC32 | MPlab x | Small and fast. We are working on improving code reviews | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Automated tests developed in parallel. Some TDD development. | Windows Embedded - but future will be Arm | Visual Studio 2013 + Resharper Ultimate, some Keil | Normally single colleague using Atlassian Crucible. Critical code will be author presenting to reviewer. | Under 10 seconds | 60% | 35% | 5% |
Show |
| C# - Unit testing and integration testing. C - Manual testing. Started unit testing this year. | STM32 | Keil uVision, Parasoft, Eclipse, Visual Studio. | We use git pull-requests for small iterations then Crucible for final reviews of full code. | 11-30 seconds | 5% | 70% | 25% |
Show |
| Testing, debugging and validation | Embedded | Keil, MS Studio | Peer reviews | 1-5 minutes | 40% | 40% | 20% |
Show |
| Unit testing and functional testing | STM32 embedded systems | Visual Studio with VisualGDB plug-in and Keil | What's to say? | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Manually | ARM Cortex M4. GPS, Bluetooth, UHF RF transciever | gcc compiler, VisualGDB and Visual Studio, Segger J-Link debugger | None (I know this needs to change) | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Regression Tests | C166 uC, AVR Xmega | JTAG | We have informal reviews with my mentor and I, and formal reviews whenever I am publishing a new framework. | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| No formal methods used regularly. Methods change depending on specific project and team members. | varies | usually Code Composer Studio for embedded C projects | mostly self-review | Under 10 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Before learning about TDD, it was tested on the hardware, with my fingers crossed it will still work when out on the field. Now, I've started taking any new code I write, and testing it in a C++ environment on my PC (but not a unit test). | Microcontroller running inside of an AC/DC power supply. | MPLAB X on microchip. However, we are moving towards ARM (I'm unsure on what tools we will be using for that) | We will work on code individually, then the person will issue a Pull Request, and all team members will review each others changes. If every team member agrees the code is good, the PR is merged. | 31-60 seconds | 10 | 50 | 40 |
Show |
| Functional testing | Power supply | MPLAB | Weekly | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 50 | 40 |
Show |
| Unit testing and manual testing for code that interacts directly with hardware registers. | Microcontrollers in a power supply | Code Composer Studio, Eclipse, MPLabX, Cygwin | Team wide code review of ONLY 1 hour a week for all code that gets written. I would much prefer a tool like Collaborator to the current method. | 1-5 minutes | 30% | 30% | 40% |
Show |
| Manually | Cortex-M | GCC, GDB, | Gerrit | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 20 | 70 |
Show |
| High-level requirements-based test plan | Emergency lighting application using PIC16LF18346 MCU | MPLAB-X | Not enough software people at my company to do code reviews, use PC-Lint instead | 11-30 seconds | 25% | 25% | 25% |
Show |
| functional, pc-lint | Microchip | Microchip | n/a | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Ad-hoc method, nothing formalized. | Windows, Linux | Visual Studio, Atmel Studio | We use Code Collaborator on projects that require them. | 1-5 minutes | 25 | 37.5 | 37.5 |
Show |
| Yes. | Embedded Linux System | GDB | Peer review using Gerrit | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| unit test, system test, valgrind, debugger | Linux, Windows, Solaris, HPUX, AIX | Eclipse, Visual Studio, platform specificompilers/debuggers | Strong proponent of code reviews. | 1-5 minutes | 15 | 15 | 10 |
Show |
| We have unit tests that run on git push and a coverage report that will +1 or -1 the code review, when code is submitted component and integration tests are ran. | Centos system | ssh, ftp, eclipse, pycharm, vim | Code is checked in and must receive a +1 from builds +1 from two team members and finally a sr member +2 and submits the code. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Ideally before writing the code, but I do write the unit tests after writing the code. I also try to make a test to run the changes on target device. | AMR Cortex-M0/M4 | Keil, gcc, cmake | We have to have a code review before the code is pushed to master | 31-60 seconds | 35 | 45 | 20 |
Show |
| Unit tests and target tests | nRF52. An SoC designed for low power wireless applications, mainly Bluetooth LE. | Keil, Visual Studio | We use CodeCollaborator. We have very productive reviews. Recently we started doing review kickoff meetings when the review is big or complex; this has been very useful. | 30-60 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| I don't :( | Nrf52, a cortex m4 with a 2.4 ghz radio | Vim and git (youcompleteme for semantic auto completion in C) | Through atlassian stash, not obligatory but recommended | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 0 | 70 |
Show |
| google test framework | multiple, ppc family as well as arm, x86 for tests | gcc, proprietary build system, git, google test, visual slickedit, salea logic | peer reviews before code is submitted | 11-30 seconds | 60 | 30 | 10 |
Show |
| continuous integration test suite (I write tests to test HW, but they can often fail if there is a code bug, and I sometimes write a few unit tests for key functions, which also runs on CI on the test HW) | ARM M4 ASICs and FPGAs | SCons, GCC, GDB, Git, Stash | vague guidelines of when they are required, usually 2 reviewers on a major change (except TCD additions/changes where they are mandatory, and should involve other testers and HW designers) | Under 10 seconds | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Unit tests, hw-sw integration tests | Cortex m4, rtos | eclipse, IAR IDE, visual studio | Bitbucket pull requests + checklists | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| unit, target | arm cortex m4 | cmake, keil/armcc, gcc | we use code collaborator | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Mostly manually | Very hardware centric system (hardware monitoring and interaction) | MPLAB IDE, JIRA, SourceTree, GitBucket | Peer reviews. | 2-4 hours | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Jenkins but mostly real life equipment | Supercapacitor Module | Mplab X | Done inside and outside the team | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| We have automated test framework based on Microsoft MSTest in Visual Studio. Also, we are using Catch as our unit test module in some projects. Also Google Gtest is used (although i have no experience with this). | Low voltage drives used for electric motors | Visual Studio code as editor, IAR ARM compiler with IAR debugging tools (I-Jet JTAG), Lauterbach Microtrace for tracing. Also oscilloscope, logic analyser etc. | We are using codecollab and over-the-shoulder reviews | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| Debugging through. | TI ARM and MSP uCPUs. | Code composer studio v7 | Small team discussions. | 31-60 seconds | 20% | 10% | 70% |
Show |
| By checking it works. | Multiple | GCC | Very few | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| We can write unit tests and module tests, but I mostly write code very close to HW and we write too few tests in that area. | Nvidia Tegra X1 (ARM Cortex-A57). | gcc, clang | We use a mailing list | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 5 | 45 |
Show |
| Mostly by visual evaluation of video. | Telepresence systems | Emacs, gcc, proprietary build system | Doesn't do | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| Mainly using the Cisco Lysaker in-house "helmet" test system. This is more a integration test system than a unit-test system. | Video conferencing box or host running on pc | Emacs, gcc, gdb, qt creator | Not used so much | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| via tailored bash-scripts that run after the kernel/driver has compiled and bootet a VM or target system | Linux kernel | emacs, gcc, make | patch-reviews via email | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 10 | 40 |
Show |
| Using a Simulator and trying , in the process of starting with automatic testing | Equipment disinfection system | Codesys | - | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| Unit, integration/smoke tests with Google Test/Mock | Xilinx ZYNQ | MS Visual Studio, Xilinx SDK, git | Done in informal way (no tooling) | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Unit tests if feasible, using either GTest+GMock or QtTest | Embedded Linux platform | QtCreator/KDevelop/VisualStudio IDEs, gdb debugger, gcc compiler mostly, sometimes valgrind for profiling | Standard (required) practice in one project, more or less non-existent in another | 11-30 seconds | 25 | 25 | 50 |
Show |
| We generate test cases which we test against. These are manual test cases based on the input requirements. Debugging is done via the development environment with breakpoints. Testing during development is also performed via the development environment with breakpoints. Watch windows are used to manipulate data to test various scenarios. | Medical device | IAR, MPLAB, Kinetics Studio, PSOC Studio | Our code reviews are based on our coding standard | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Junit Unit tests per class and larger-scale integration tests | Currently the JVM/Java8, previously x86 and ARM | Eclipse, Emacs, GNU toolchain | Code reviews are mandatory for each pull request, mostly 1-2 reviewers per PR | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| I have been working more on theory than practice, and as a result do way less coding and even less testing. | Usually an arduino or something similar with 1 or more sensors/devices attached. | gcc, git, svn | ?? | 11-30 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| not writing code anymore. test code is mostly written in ruby/python, etc. | lithographic wafer scanner (in previous project: electron microscope, X-Ray scanner, professional harddisk recorder) | not anymore | n/a | 30-60 minutes | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Show |
| Unit test with gtest/gmock System tests with python autotesters | Server running linux | Eclipse | CodeCollaborator | 30-60 minutes | 30% | 30% | 10% |
Show |
| Our devs use unit tests, I do additional integration and end to end testing (automated as much as possible). | Currently web services, but wanting to go back into (embedded) software testing | Visual Studio, Resharper | Varying quality... Depending totally on the person | 1-2 hours | 40 | 50 | 10 |
Show |
| Through unit tests and system tests. Some system tests are automated. | n/a | GNU tools, Eclipse, MINGW, Jira | All implementations get reviewed using Jira or Crucible | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Reviews, stubbed environment, on the target system. | Windows, Embedded Linux. | RSARTE | Peer reviews, no formal process. | 30-60 minutes | 30 | 20 | 10 |
Show |
| Few enuit tests, run the code, manual tests. Cuerrently work in on automating re add tests for complete products. | SiLabs ZigBee HVAC and Home automation. | IAR PC Lint, Bcc, python, git, redmine, | Do not existj | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 10 | 10 |
Show |
| Few enuit tests, run the code, manual tests. Cuerrently work in on automating re add tests for complete products. | SiLabs ZigBee HVAC and Home automation. | IAR PC Lint, Bcc, python, git, redmine, | Do not existj | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 10 | 10 |
Show |
| Manually. Identify new test cases, see that they fail with the changes, add changes, and see thath they fix the problem. List them in commit message. | multi part system but both targets are ARM based. built under Mac and Windows | gcc as toolchain but some processors require Windows to be built completely | using Gerrit. Requires votes for code, build, verification, and test... we ignore test. | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| Manual, using test steps defined in Excel files | Win + Mac | Visual Studio, XCode, Jenkins | Reviewboard, request review for each commit | 31-60 seconds | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| Manually. I run long tests and debug myself. | I'm using a nordic chip with m4 arm processor. I use IAR to build and flash the code. | IAR, sublime text editor | We use github and create PRs where I generally tag other software engineers. We go through the code thoroughly for good practices, algorithmic correctness and general coding etiquette. | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| ADA Unit Test framework | Embedded Systems | Eclipse , GNAT | very much like pair programming | 5-30 minutes | 70 | 20 | 10 |
Show |
| mostly manually and also using Pyats | Router IR800 and CGR1000 | vi, python idle | NA | 1-5 minutes | less | little more | more |
Show |
| I have recently started writing unit tests alongside new code. Previously, I would run code and observe its behavior. | Proprietary ARM-based hardware for use in aircraft. | Green Hills MULTI, Eclipse, Jira, Git | We use pull requests to check code against our standard and look for anything concerning. More relaxed when prototyping. | 11-30 seconds | 55 | 10 | 35 |
Show |
| GHS scripting on MULTI IDE | ARM embedded | GHS, PR QAC static analysis, several IDEs | Peer review, using Excel spreadsheets to track issues | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Manual Testing, if at all. I've been writing unit tests for some new code modules. | 802.15.4 WSN | Makefile, git | N/A I work solo | 1-5 minutes | 45 | 10 | 45 |
Show |
| Unit test and functional test | linux | intellij idea , vim | we use kingart for the same | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| google test is used but I do not know how to use it yet. | Arm processor | CLION, vi, gdb | GitHub | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 10 | 40 |
Show |
| Using Unit Test framework, White Box Testing, and Functional Testing. | linux | vim, tmux, ctags, cscope for C/C++, IntelliJ IDE for JAVA code. | Get really good constructive feedback from senior engineers which helps me improve. | 5-30 minutes | 30% | 10% | 60% |
Show |
| Before reading Grenning's TDD book, I would write some "test" code that showed what I wanted my new code to do from a client standpoint. I would instantiate the thing, make some requests, etc, to get an idea of what I expected. Then I would write a flurry of code, possibly rewrite my "test" code and cycle that until it worked. These tests never used a test harness. Since I've ready the book, I haven't had the opportunity to write a lot of code but when I do, I try to follow the TDD-style in defining some tests more formally. I don't use a test harness yet but I am testing much lower-level functions now rather than testing very high-level things before (when they didn't work, finding out what was wrong in my 20-30 lines of code was where my time went). | My legacy project runs on an STM32F4 that interfaces with a Broadcom WiFi/BLE chip | Eclipse GCC in Linux at the moment. Considering IAR | Nothing yet. Team of 1 | Under 10 seconds | 25 | 25 | 50 |
Show |
| Manual test procedures. ASSERT macros. | Low power embedded microcontrollers. | IAR embedded workbench | Email reviewers ahead of meeting to give them time to review code indiviually. Sit together and review as a group. | 11-30 seconds | 33 | 33 | 33 |
Show |
| Existing integration tests to make sure we don't break something (regression), new tests at a functional level for new features | Embedded device using C, compiled in IAR. Used by Utility companies | IAR, Lint, C-Stat | Every commit through Fisheye/crucible | 5-30 minutes | 75 | 15 | 10 |
Show |
| Whitebox, GDB, very limited JTAG debugging when doing kernel development | Embedded linux built by Yocto | Yocto, Visual Studio Code | Don't do them | 1-5 minutes | 80 | 10 | 10 |
Show |
| Not doing any unit level testing. The unit testing as we have been calling it, is actually integration testing. | Target Systems are mostly x86 processor based routers. | Vim, Ctags, Cscope, make | Code reviews are done without miss. Diffs are uploaded to an internal tool, which will be later reviewed by teammates. | 2-4 hours | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| unit test with unity | embedded | keil, IAR, codelite | peer review | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| Jenkins - custom automated, Manual | Arm | Eclipse | Infrequent | Under 10 seconds | 60 | 30 | 10 |
Show |
| Uploading it to hardware | Wireless sensor module | Keil, IAR, PyCharm | Looking for functionality, readability and simplicity | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| Create GUI test harness to exercise interfaces. Create unit tests to automate regression testing. | Desktop and Mobile application | Visual Studio | None | 31-60 seconds | 35 | 40 | 25 |
Show |
| Unit testing after implementation | Low power, embedded, Arm-core microcontollers. Typically M0. | IAR, Keil, SVN, Unity, Jenkins, | Code reviews are requested using Review Board. They are done within the team. Not really enforced, it's the responsibility of each team member to request a code review. | 31-60 seconds | 50% | 25% | 25% |
Show |
| Manually | An old systemfull of code from 20 + years | Rad Studio, Visual Studio | Sporadic at best | 1-5 minutes | 33 | 33 | 34 |
Show |
| Manual unit test, google test | Subsea Control System | uVision, Visual Studio | code review | 1-2 hours | 60 | 25 | 15 |
Show |
| System tests | Runs on Windows | RAD Studio | N/A | 1-2 hours | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| If the device is not on fire it is working! | Mostly low-power ARM M0-M3 controllers or ESP8266 | Platformio, Arduino | None | 11-30 seconds | 40% | 30% | 30% |
Show |
| Do not have a great strategy at the moment. | Windows + VxWorks. | Visual Studio | Not standardized yet | 31-60 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| N/A | Linux | eclipse | I tend to get much in the start but now things are getting better. | 1-5 minutes | 40% | 20% | 40% |
Show |
| Mostly manual testing. No TDD, jury rigged mocking using GCC's __wrap. Not very elegant. | Various, some regular C++ under linux, some libraries for "semi-embedded" systems. | Fairly bare bones, vim with clang plugins, CMake | Almost non-existant | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| A mix of unit tests (Windows), manual testing (on target). | Embedded system | Visual Studio, gcc, scripts written in house. | Peer-reviewrd by another programmer | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| New code is tested using unit tests developed on Windows and executed on target. Legacy code is tested using manual test procedures. | PowerPC based real time controllers for automation and control systems. | WindRiver Tornado, Workbench, GCC, Testwell C++ | Mandatory review by at least one other person. Now based on Git pull requests. | 1-5 minutes | - | - | - |
Show |
| manual test plans (smoke tests). | RHEL-like linuxes running enterprise IT systems | gcc, vagrant for local testing, docker for building kernel modules of various distros, | informal peer reviews. after two thumbs-up, we can merge into the code repository | 5-30 minutes | 10 | 50 | 40 |
Show |
| Debug printing. End-to-end testing. | RHEL/Centos 6.5-6.9 and 7.0-7.4 | GCC, Docker, Docker Compose, Vagrant, Virtual Box, Vmware, BBedit | Push commits to a topic branch. Create a merge request in gitlab where we can review the code changes. Our team requires sign off of at least two reviewers. | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 15 | 35 |
Show |
| runtime instrumentation + standalone unit tests | linux kernel | editor, compiler, linker, Google + my head | mostly useless | 1-5 minutes | 40 (you are missing design: 40) | 20 | 0 |
Show |
| functional testing based on changes | Red Hat based Linux systems | vim, gcc, make, docker | We have them, and they do uncover issues from time to time. | 1-5 minutes | 25 | 35 | 40 |
Show |
| gtest, custom test frameworks | endpoint sensor | gcc, git, Make, CMake, JIRA | we do code reviews on all changes | 1-5 minutes | 25 | 25 | 50 |
Show |
| Unit tests (custom framework), writing test programs (either in C++ or python) for functional validation testing, manual testing | Software I work on targets enterprise Mac and Linux platforms | gcc, xcode, pycharm, | we use review board or merge requests depending on the team/source control | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 60 | 20 |
Show |
| Automation framework to test end to end functionality, but no well-defined way to test automation code as its written | Multiple flavors of linux, goal is to have good TDD practices established for new team | Pycharm | Any merge request needs be reviewed and approved by at least 1 person. (Team is small, ~6 people, so everyone has a good knowledge of most of the codebase) | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 15 | 35 |
Show |
| hahaha - by interactions between product code and the test framework I am using. | python coded tests for sensor product on Linux using an in house test framework that simulates Server components. | Intellij, emacs | standards set by my Agile team | Under 10 seconds | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| N/A | None | None | N/A | 1 day or more | None | N/A | N/A |
Show |
| Combination of whole system integration tests, some unit tests, and manual testing. | Desktop/Mobile/Embedded Linux | Visual Studio, Visual Studio Code, .NET SDK, Git, SVN | - | 31-60 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| not really as a routine but a separate process. | the curent job is a STM32 MCU | MS Visual Studio, Eclips, etc. | once two weeks as suppose | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| In stages. Write, Test, Repeat. | Atmel 8-bit | Atmel Studio | So far, so good. | 11-30 seconds | .85 | .05 | .1 |
Show |
| Haphazardly. I start with unit testing, but once the work of mocking becomes large, time pressure generally puts the focus on writing more features rather than mocks. At the intermediate level, we do some integration testing. For example, test that all endpoints of our embedded webserver respond as expected, with the hardware mocked out. At the final level, we test that the UI behaves as expected and that the device behaves as expected, but often overlook testing error conditions or trying to cause error conditions. | Currently it is an Arria 10 SoC, which is serving up a webpage for user control. | VS Code, Visual Studio, PyCharm | Generally, the the reviewers know what the code is supposed to accomplish and the primary developer explains how the code achieves the goal. | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Run it against requirements and my own list of where I'm likely to make a mistake. Boundary conditions, timing jitter, etc. | Embedded devices | various embedded IDEs. | n/a | 11-30 seconds | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| Manually | n/a | Pycharm | n/a | Under 10 seconds | 70 | 10 | 20 |
Show |
| Test by hand on the product. | ATmega328P, SAM3X8E, Embedded Linux ARM | Atmel Studio, Eclipse | I haven't participated in code reviews with Bird | 11-30 seconds | 80 | 10 | 10 |
Show |
| I am currently a Product Manager | N/A | N/A | N/A | Under 10 seconds | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Show |
| I usually go through the code because yet, I didn't have to write long code. | N/A | Code Blocks, NetBeans | N/A | 31-60 seconds | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Show |
| Python unittest for REST interface. cpputest for C/C++ unit tests | Embedded Linux 3.14 or 4.9 running on armv7hf | atom editor, custom build environment | We have them, we facilitate with Gerrit. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| On target. Test at a system level. | embedded | Greehills | Gerrit | 5-30 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Run it on real HW. | Custom ASIC / SOCs | -- | Everything gets reviewed by a peer. | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Some unit test, some manual, some semi automated integration and application acceptance testing. | We target multiple uC - 8 and 32 bit, baremetal, RTOS, Limux, Windows and Android | Atmel Studio, Visual Studio, GCC, a few others for legacy projects | I would guess that <50% is reviewed. A couple of teams schedule and conduct them explicitly. | 1-5 minutes | 25 | 25 | 50 |
Show |
| test on target | windows control, unix based target | MS Visual Studio | One on one with boss. | 31-60 seconds | 10% | 30% | 60% |
Show |
| I tend to build testing into a module and then exercise module functionality using those test functions. | RF IQ Capture and PLayback devices | Currenlty Visual Studio and QT | Since becoming involved in engineering at X-COM, I've been fixing & maintaining code that was written by interns. There are only two of us and we work together daily. | 11-30 seconds | 5-10 | 25 | 65-70 |
Show |
| Desk/bench testing, run smoke test. Otherwise rely on other test labs, automated testing. | printer engine running on threadx | Custom build, git, multi, gerrit, emacs | gerrit, mandatory | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| On target hardware with semi-automated test scripts | Dozens of different ink jet printers with custom asics and custom smart chip solutions. Printers span a range of end user prices of $39 to $100000+. | Greenhills compiler, Multi debugger | We use Gerrit to do code reviews on every check in. This is automatically enforced as part of our check in process. | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Unit test, functional tests. | Embedded firmware | PyCharm | Informal | Under 10 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Running it on hardware | Printer hardware | Linux, Multi | Use of Gerrit, all code is reviewed | 30-60 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| mostly manual testing since it require working hardware. | ARM based | in-house tools, multi | use jenkens | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Ad hoc | Multi-core ARM system running Linux and ThreadX (on different cores) | GHS Multi, Eclipse, Visual Studio | Gerrit | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Mostly manually by interacting with the product or using some built in "shell" functionality that enables invoking operations via a serial port. | printer or all in one device | Products contain Linux and ThreadX RTOS running on different processors. RTOS uses green hills compiler and debugger. On Linux gcc and the green hills debugger. | All changes must be reviewed with at least one person via gerrit | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| I test on a representative target using special (UDW) commands that is part of the embedded code that allows direct API access into specific modules. These commands could be run from a target shell or driven by external scripts. | ARM baed asysmmetric multi-processing system on a custom ASIC running ThreadX and Linux OS. | ARM gcc, git, gdb, MULTI, shell | peer review using gerrit | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Put debug statement and manually test. | linux | na | code reviews is done via gerrit | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| unit tests, functional tests, full system tests | arm based embedded linux system | gnu C++, python, eclipse, pycharm | We use git/bitbucket pull request mechanism for important/complex code that needs to be reviewed | Under 10 seconds | 30 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| With unit tests, and have created functional integration test frameworks for black box testing | Embedded linux | Qt, python | Currently, it's ad-hoc and will walk through the code with a peer if necessary | Under 10 seconds | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| I've mostly done Test After Development, but I've recently been trying to switch to TDD. | Android, embedded Linux, Windows | Android Studio, Eclipse, IntelliJ | None | 31-60 seconds | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| Not formally | ARM Microcontroller | lpcxpresso (eclipse) | NA | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| system testing | armv7 | netbeans | none | 30-60 minutes | 33 | 33 | 33 |
Show |
| test concurrent | linux kernel, embedded linux, mcu | text editor | Don't do them | Under 10 seconds | 33 | 33 | 33 |
Show |
| Manually :( | Android and Linux | Android Studio | N/A | 31-60 seconds | 70 | 20 | 5 |
Show |
| Run everything in debug mode and when it fails check where it fails. | embedded linux systems | visual studios | Do code review on major changes | 11-30 seconds | 50% | 30% | 20% |
Show |
| Unit test and manual test | Embedded and Web Application | Eclipse, Clion, PyCharm, IntelliJ, Android Studio | Peer review | 1-5 minutes | 40% | 20% | 40% |
Show |
| Mostly Developer test | Embedded Linux | Lots, mostly Netbeans now. | As needed | 11-30 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| printk | Embeddded Linux - kernel level and mid stack, drivers, ARM | gcc, emacs, vi, gdb, oscilloscopes, logic analyzer | limited | 5-30 minutes | 5 | 5 | 40 |
Show |
| Writing my own quick test harness if I can | Kernel + User-mode | Xcode | One or two reviewers | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Application specific unit tests, manual tests, automated tests | macOS | XCode | Using ReviewBoard | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| depends - sometimes with test driver code, sometimes following flow with a debugger | MacOS services & device drivers | xcode, eclipse | code reviews are via automated diff generation | 5-30 minutes | 35 | 15 | 50 |
Show |
| We don't really haha. Debug statements by hand I guess. There is some automation for QA but in terms of me trying to figure out if what I wrote does what I think it does there's not much there. | Mac OS 10.13 | Xcode | Usually very thorough but not a whole lot of rules or procedures | 1-5 minutes | 40% | 20% | 40% |
Show |
| Unit/functional tests. | Win7+ | Visual Studio | Peer-reviewed by fellow co-workers, across teams. | 1-5 minutes | 30% | 40% | 30% |
Show |
| yes | windows | Visual Studio, WinDbg | A must-have | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 35 | 15 |
Show |
| test module functionality | varies | eclipse, gcc, visual studio | Github reviews | 11-30 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Honestly, logging statements for the most part. | MacOS endpoints | Xcode, IntelliJ | 1-3 other developers and review, wait for "ship its" | 5-30 minutes | 45 | 10 | 45 |
Show |
| Often times by running the code and seing the results first hand. | printer | Eclipse and VS code | haven't been part of one yet | 1-5 minutes | 35 | 25 | 40 |
Show |
| run it on the printer! unit tests if written on epoch codebase. | Micrium imx6 dual core | Eclipse, ARM DS-5 | Online, mostly find functional erros | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 10 | 50 |
Show |
| No unit tests, functional test at a high level. | ARM Imx5, Imx6 | ARM DS-5 IDE, Onx IDE | We use code collobarator or pair with someone else | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| Verify that it works as necessary to meet specification. Use Zebra unit test harness. | Zebra Mobile Printers | Eclipse, Notepad++, Beyond Compare, Cygwin, Toolbox | Have not participated in a code review. | 31-60 seconds | 25 | 35 | 40 |
Show |
| unit tests, automated black box testing, system testing. | NXP iMX6.SoloX | ARM DS-5 toolchain | Code changes are reviewed by at least two other developers via online platform, or are developed using pair programming | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Unit/Acceptance tests. | Linux | Visual Studio, Eclipse | Code reviews are done before committing code | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Writing acceptance tests, unit tests. Sometimes manual use case testing. | Zebra Printer/Web/Mobile Device | Momentics, Jetbrains IDE's, etc. | Peer code review, where a colleague comes to my desk before checking in. As well as pull requests. | 1-5 minutes | 70 | 10 | 20 |
Show |
| Create cpputest, junit, some times manual testing | linux, windows, android | eclipse, VS, momentics | self and peer | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Unit tests, automated acceptance tests | embedded system | Momentics IDE in a development VM | We do either pair programming or code reviews using Code Collaborator | 31-60 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Unittests, acceptance test frameworks, manual tests where necessary | Ask me about my target system. | vim? Linux? | Git pull requests. 1-2 reviewers | 1-5 minutes | 33 | 33 | 33 |
Show |
| - | - | - | - | 5-30 minutes | 60% | 10% | 30% |
Show |
| Unit Testing. Black Box Testing. | Embedded | IDE - Momentics, Build Server, SVN, Google Search, Collaborator | Meh. Usually good for checking syntax.. Normally not very effective for concept understanding. | 30-60 minutes | 50 | 10 | 40 |
Show |
| Develop manual and automated test cases and execute them | It varies, currently testing an SDK | Visual Studio, | never had one | 11-30 seconds | ~0 | 60 | 40 |
Show |
| Unit tests | arm processor | momentix | I find them helpful. | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Using the debugger | printers | Momentics | sometimes we pair program with more experienced developers | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 10 | 60 |
Show |
| Debugging and/or sending data and checking the output. | Printers, Windows, Android | Momentics (Eclipse sort of), Visual Studio, Eclipse, Android Studio | Only in certain projects; pair program and review code together or review the code by myself | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| By running through a suite of tests that verify output from our products. | Firmware | Eclipse, Visual Studio, Resharper, Various in-house tools for testing and communication | We don't do them in most projects | 5-30 minutes | 80 | 5 | 15 |
Show |
| We put the burden on the end user to test the code (user acceptance test). New product engineering here produces unit tests for proper code coverage, however our business model does not easily facilitate creating/testing code in the typical manner. | QNX/arm | Momentics, GCC | they don't exist | 5-30 minutes | 25 | 50 | 25 |
Show |
| Unit test individual code components. Write small test applications to test the code. | Primarily PC application with some RT controllers | Mostly the tools that come with the LabVIEW IDE. G is a graphical programming language and traditional text based tools do not work. | We generally do pair programming for more complex development and use peer code reviews for other code. | Under 10 seconds | 40% | 40% | 20% |
Show |
| Manually | Web Platforms (Spring and Tomcat based), Android Development, and Android / Windows SDKs | Intellij, PyCharm, Atom, Beyond Compare, git, jira, jenkins, bitbucket, Android Studio, AWS | rarely performed | 31-60 seconds | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| PDB/Pycharm debugger, prints | Zebra Printers | NA | Pair | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 50 | 30 |
Show |
| - | - | VS,Momentics | None | 31-60 seconds | 90 | 5 | 5 |
Show |
| In-system debugging Blackbox tests | Our applications are energy harvesting or low powered radio transceiver/transmitters. Current micontroller platform is STM32L0 (ARM-M0 core). We also worked with MSP430, 8051 platform and Microchip 18F, 16F and 12F families. | Keil µVision with ARM compiler. In the past also IAR-ARM/MSP430 and MPlab | Done/documented by another partner before product is going to be released. | 11-30 seconds | 45 | 55 | 5 |
Show |
| Manually | STM32M (ARM-M4) | IAR, Git | Implementing via Atlassian tool-chain; Bitbucket pull requests. | 1-5 minutes | 33.3% | 33.3% | 33.4% |
Show |
| mostly printf. | i.mx35 and STM32 with a ARM cortex M3 | optima, visual studio, lauterbach debugger, keil µVision, svn | send the code to a colleague who usually returns it with some critique, if a larger discussion is needed a forum for all developers is held every other week where such questions can be raised. | 1-5 minutes | 34 | 33 | 33 |
Show |
| Use a Documented Test Plan | I usually write software for desktops or web. | Visual Studio | N/A - We have just started doing this here | Under 10 seconds | 25 | 50 | 25 |
Show |
| nose2 for python or make test for C. Local gitlab server with CI. Use pylint or flake8 as a linter for python. I would love to have a good linter for C. Always compile with -Wall -Werror in CI. | x89, arm, blackfin | vim, cscope, ctags. Sometimes an IDE like pycharm. depends on language,codebase and build system. Have started to look into docker but have not had the time to do anything usefull with it. | I love constructive criticism. It helps me grow and improve. | 1-5 minutes | 70 | 10 | 20 |
Show |
| Unity for Unittest. Pytest on Raspberry Pi for Black Box testing on hardware. | STM32l0 | We hope getting away from Keil in the near future | We use ReviewTool | 31-60 seconds | 45 | 20 | 35 |
Show |
| In-system | uC & DSP-based RF-system | gcc, gnu make | sparse | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| Full device I/O tests. | mostly microcontrollers | IDEs, debuggers, Understand | Several people in a conf. room who review changes to the code. | 1-5 minutes | 35% | 15% | 50% |
Show |
| Write Unit Tests after writing the code, then altering the code to work better for the tests | Medical Instrument | Visual Studio | Require 2 code reviewers on every code change | 1-5 minutes | 15 | 30 | 55 |
Show |
| By Hand | For BD - Target embedded PC, Windows 10 | VS 2015 CE | Code reviews done in TFS/VSTS | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| unit test + manual testing | Win 10 IOT | Visual Studio, SSMS, notepad++, linqpad | we have them | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Unit Tests, Module Level Tests | Windows | Visual Studio 2015 | Try to concentrate on function rather than standards | 1-5 minutes | 75 | 10 | 15 |
Show |
| Mix of automatic, simulator and manual test | Medical instrument | visual studio | 2 code reviews | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Repeatedly | Windows Embedded | VS2017, VSTS | Online via VSTS | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| unit test, on machine, in simulator | W10 SBC | Visual Studio, IAR | verify developer understands how what they're doing fits into larger system | 1-5 minutes | 70 | 20 | 10 |
Show |
| Using the tests already implemented. | Windows 10 IoT | Visual Studio | Normally last about 3 minutes with light questions about pull requests | 30-60 minutes | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| automated tests and instrument tests | windows | visual studio | we review the pull requests agaisnt the team branch. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 10 | 40 |
Show |
| Manual tests and Visual Studio | Microsoft Windows | visual studio, NuGet packages | manual and git pull requests | 1-5 minutes | 25 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Automated unit test using Moq & Fakes. Debug on instruments. | Windows OS | VS, Git | >= 2 developers in MS Team. Follow coding standards. Review unit test effectiveness. | 31-60 seconds | 45 | 45 | 10 |
Show |
| unit testing, instrument testing | medical device system | visual studio | Last project: pretty thorough. | 1-5 minutes | 33 | 33 | 33 |
Show |
| Debugger | A mix of embedded C++ and a Windows computer running a C# application | VS 2015, IAR | Much better now that we use TFS. We used to print diffs and walk through with other developers in a meeting | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Unit tests and on-instrument testing | Windows 10 IoT | Visual Studio, TypeScript, npm, SQL Management Studio | Online using VSO, or in-person if need be | 5-30 minutes | 20% | 50% | 30% |
Show |
| Unit, Integrated and directed testing | directed testing | Visual Studio, MS SQL Server | industry standard | 4-8 hours | 20 | 50 | 30 |
Show |
| Automated and manual tests | x64 Window 10 Iot | Visual Studio | Done using VSTS tools on git pulls requests. 2 peers review and comment, and pulls are gated on branch policies. | 1-5 minutes | 40% | 40% | 20% |
Show |
| 1) unit tests 2) simulators 3) on instrument 4) mini test programs | bd instrument | visual studio | often perfunctory | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| We start using device simulators to run a "simulated run" Then we basically make sure it didn't break any unit tests, which are mostly integration tests in our case. Then we take it to a real instrument and test the code on the instrument, if it works it's usually approved for a merge. | Lots of devices which we connect to by creating objects to represent them via XML Configuration files, we have "Device Simulator" versions of these Devices for running in simulator (testing) mode. | Node, Sql Server Express, Git, Visual Studio Team Services, NuGet | We require 2 reviewers for any merge - usually people who are the most knowledgeable of the areas of code you're changing. | 5-30 minutes | 15% | 60% | 25% |
Show |
| Run existing automated tests and then manually test on a real device. | Windows 10 | VS2015 | Too infrequent; not substantial enough | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| It depends on what type of testing I am doing. I do a combination of simulation, integration, and instrument testing depending on the code changes I have made. | Instrument, Azure VMs | Visual Studio | Code reviews tend to be fast, but also tend to catch at least some errors. | 5-30 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Testing involves unit test and manual testing on instruments | Windows based computer that talks to different devices | TFS, Visual Studio, SQL Management Studio | code reviewed by two people | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| After complete, hardcore functional testing. | Embedded System using MicroChip controllers. | CCS IDE system | local colleagues and a 3rd party resource. Been favorable, though high cyclomatic and cognitive scores | 1-5 minutes | 40% | 25% | 35% |
Show |
| desktop tests, unit tests, hardware in the loop, software in the loop and system level verification | Battery powered device with radios | IAR, gcc, cmake | We require 2 people to approve a Git pull request. We also do more formal design reviews based on risk/safety | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Some automation w/ Cygwin and gmock, but mostly manual on-target testing though a debugger | 16-bit NXP MCU (S12Z) | CodeWarrior, Visual Studio Code, PE Micro debugger | they are done virtually through our VCS (GitLab) | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Manual unit tests and manual regression tests | Battery powered microcontrollers | GCC, IAR, and Eclipse | Use SmartBear's Collaborator tool. Some code, but not all. | 11-30 seconds | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| Machine system/regression tests. | Mail processing equipment controls. Specifically Atmel ARM (AT91 and ATSAM) using GPIO, CAN, Serial etc. Lots of control state machines. | Rowley Crossworks, AtmelStudio, B&R Automation Studio (PLC) | I'm the only experienced embedded developer, so code reviews are essentially, me explaining my code to the very junior C developer or to experienced C# developers. | Under 10 seconds | 50% | 15% | 35% (debugging before release, very few errors make it to the field) |
Show |
| Hand testing, a custom in-unit test framework is sometimes utilized. CLI environment and debugger often used to introduce conditions. Custom code to change paths. | Microprocessors, typically ARM based running FreeRTOS, but a decent number of Microchip PICs. Some Embedded Linux is appearing. Some java for non-embedded. | IAR, Jenkins for Continuous build. Segger J-Flash. Tracealyzer | We try to review everything.Reviews are deskchecks for small changes, meetings w/ 2-4 people for bigger changes. Focus on fitting in the code architecture + error paths. Led by the developer. | 31-60 seconds | 20 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Simulations, test code for test-automation, logging | STM32 | Keil ARM uVision Pro | Only had 1. Not much help.... | 1-5 minutes | 70 | 10 | 20 |
Show |
| unit test code, console commands, wireless remote test commands, interfaces, emulators/debuggers, GUI/Management software for integration/system tests | ARM3/4 32 bit or Linux SBC | GCC, IAR, Eclipse | mandotory, at least 2 developers use Fisheye | 1-5 minutes | 50% | 40% | 10% |
Show |
| Mix of manual and gtest: Using gtest on the host to check on application logic. Using emulator (breakpoints) to check on logic at target system. | Using open source toolchains, ARM GCC STMF4/STMF7, No RTOS(Bare Metal), FreeRTOS | Using open source tools. | Peer code reviews | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| Debugger, regression test scripts using custom test harnesses, software simulator running in Windows environment. | Microcontroller based government systems | IAR Workbench | Peer reviews usually toward the end of coding | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 15 | 35 |
Show |
| Gtest, currently getting familiar with parasoft tools. Some experience with Segger trace tools. | STM32F4/7 | Eclipse, Cmake, | Manual and inefficient. | Under 10 seconds | 25 | 25 | 50 |
Show |
| Manual testing | Cortex M-3 | GNU | Team based code reviews | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Some amount of unit testing, we do a certain amount of integration testing. Mostly lab testing | Freescale HC12 and TI TIva | Understand | We do them consistently | 1-2 hours | 3 hours | 2 days | 0.5 day |
Show |
| unit tests using ceedling + integration tests using proprietary HW platform. | watch :) | jlink + exlipse, KEIL, Jtrace | using bitbucket for each pull request | 1-5 minutes | 50% | 20% | 30% |
Show |
| Due to time constraints. I'm testing in on emulator... Trying to write unit tests when/if there is a bug.. to show highlight the bug, and demonstrate the fix. | 8Bits EM microelectronic Coolrisc. | Eclipse and Winidea (Raisonance), I also used to work with IAR, Keil uVision, Code Composer Studin | The software shall build and all the unit tests shall pass. Regarding the way I'm reviewing, code aspect and the atomicity of the commit are important in order to be able to focus on the implementation change. | 1-5 minutes | 35 | 40 | 25 |
Show |
| Unit test, On the target | Small 8 bits uC, 32k flash, 4k Ram | Eclipse | Code reviews done by 3-4 team members on bitbucket, 2 approuvals are needed | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 10 | 40 |
Show |
| Unit test and manual integration tests | 8 bits EM chip with CoolRisc core | eclipse/winidea | We do a code review for each pull request | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| manual manipulation, target interface control by python tests, test code emulated on pc | confidental | CLion IDE | done on each pull request | 1-5 minutes | 30 % | 20 % | 50 % |
Show |
| I currently test my code by playing with the target and sometimes modifying the internal states with the debugger. | Mostly 32 bits ARM Cortex-M (M0-M4) | gcc toolchain, Makefile + Eclipse. Sometimes Ozone for debugging. | We review every branch before it's merged. We pay attention to readability, standards, function size, and try to spot weak points, although we know we're never able to get enough understanding of the code reviewed to spot real logic issues. | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 20 | 70 |
Show |
| Integration tests. | . | Eclipse and Keil | Reviews are obligatory to push our changes to the server | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| I wrote integration tests of module/system which is platform depending and it is closer to reality (we uses external IC and etc...) But recently we started using unit test approach in our compony. So I write unit tests for all functions of module including static function (to get 100% code and branch coverage). | NA | Eclipse, Ceedling, Unity, Pytest | Our company review mechanism is maintained by BitBucket where we need to have two approves from reviewers before we can put our code to develop branch of repository. During review we need to check coding standards and partially functionality of code. | 1-5 minutes | 45 | 40 | 15 |
Show |
| Unit tests, Automated integration tests, Exploratory testing | ARM Cortex-M4 | Keil MDK, GNU Arm Embedded toolchain | Pull requests in Bitbucket reviewed at least by 2 people. | 31-60 seconds | 35 | 25 | 40 |
Show |
| Most of the time, manually with the debugger. Sometimes, I write unit test, executed directly on the target. | MCU 8 bits | WinIDEA | We use bitbucket PR (attlassian), 2 reviews before merging | 11-30 seconds | 50% | 30% | 20% |
Show |
| With Ceedling, I do tests and try to maximize test coverage | For tests: The target is the computer | If possible, I apply test driven development | Tests with Ceedling | 31-60 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Currently, I always test my code with only some specific cases. The reason of this bad method is often the time missing. :( | uC 8 bits | We use the GCC toolchain with an Eclipse IDE. For debug, we use WinIDEA IDE. | We use the pull request method of Git | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 10 | 20 |
Show |
| Manually test in target system based on requirements or design expectations Write a test harness "hello world" to execute code I pulled out of a system | An NXP iMX6 Dual Core processor running at 800 MHz running an Integrity operating system | Visual Studio, Understand, Green Hills MULTI, Cygwin | Some teams perform code reviews on a story by story basis to remove defects early. This is not required by our process. Formal code reviews happen to groups of code changes associated with feature changes that can span weeks to months. | 1-5 minutes | 65 | 25 | 10 |
Show |
| Multiple layers. Informal bench testing. Code analysis. Code Reviews. Manual integration tests. Coverage unit tests and some functional (requirements) tests using VectorCAST. Also manual functional tests (we have a separate group set up for this). Systems V&V. Algorithm verification tests automated in MATLAB/Simulink. | 4 boards, main target is iMX.6 based. | Editors, Green Hills emulators, RTOS debuggers, VectorCAST. | Code Reviews on all code. Many sentiments that they are not that useful. We have certain personnel who analyze code for defects. | 11-30 seconds | 25 | 0 | 75 |
Show |
| We have something we call CBAT (Continuous Build and Automated Testing), which includes all of automated builds that are executed within TeamCity. Once the builds are complete we run unit tests (for those that have implemented them) then integration tests on the target devices and monitor them with various lab equipment to measure performance, current draw, test interfaces, pre-compliance testing, etc. We also do separate design validation tests in our Electronics Lab, which are sometimes manual in nature. We also have an SQA department that does testing from a customer perspective. | Some products use microcontrollers (ARM M3/M4, 8051, MSP430) running bare metal code. The other end of the spectrum are microprocessors (BlackFin) and FPGAs | IAR, Keil, PC-lint, RSM, Doxygen, JTAG debuggers, oscilloscopes, protocol analyzers, spectrum analyzers, DC current analyzers | All code merged to mainline is done via Pull Request, which generates online review on our internal Bitbucket server. | 11-30 seconds | 60 | 25 | 15 |
Show |
| Code inspection and running the code on the machine. | PrisMax | Visual Studio | This is where most of our issues are found. | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Functional testing using actual system HW and events that drive all paths to uncover all timing dependent race conditions to determine sufficient margins. | No OS | Oscilloscopes, LA, in-house tools | too much focus on syntax/coding-std and not enough on overall structure of design | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 60 | 10 |
Show |
| printf | Embedded Greenhills Integrity OS | SlickEdit code editor, command line build | Use Crucible, tend to be well after code has been written/tested | 1-5 minutes | 60% | 10% | 30% |
Show |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | 5-30 minutes | --- | --- | --- |
Show |
| Manual test procedures, unit tests written in VectorCast by engineers other than the developers | imx6/ARM | Cygwin | Not a big believer in code reviews | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| On the advice of counsel, I invoke my fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination and respectfully decline to answer your question. | 2006 cel phone | Changing from Windows (Visual Studio) to Linux based | Perfunctory | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 10 | 40 |
Show |
| Using a debugger, trying the code on the system, and adding in test functionality that can run while the system is live (for example, changing a temporary test global value to be what's needed to inject a failure value in to see that system behaves correctly) | 1 main processor running the application on a real time operating system (Green Hills), 3 bare metal processors that perform other secondary/safety functions of the system | Green Hills Software MULTI debugger and SlickEdit | They seem to focus (in general) on simple coding standard fixes when schedule is rushed, too late and rushed for it to be useful for making design improvements | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| I test my code by creating test scenarios and analyzing the output. | NA | NA | NA | Under 10 seconds | 1/2 | 1/4 | 1/4 |
Show |
| Running it on the target system. | It is many pumps. | Notepad+++ | Peer to Peer | 1 day or more | 9% | 9% | 9% |
Show |
| New company and still figuring that out. Before I just tested the code on the physical machines it controlled. | It measures how much water is being used. | IAR Embedded Workbench, Simplicity Studios, Git Flow, Bitbucket, SourceTree | We use Bitbucket to do pull requests where then everyone can review the code on their own time. | 11-30 seconds | 60 | 30 | 10 |
Show |
| I test my code by stepping through or via breakpoints. | MCUs | IAR compilers (ARM, MSP430), MLAB X, Linux | Currently done via the build in Bitbucket interface | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 0 | 70 |
Show |
| I add lots of asserts. Most testing is done manually, or I may write a script if manual testing is too tedious. | Blackfin, 8051, MSP430, ARM. Bare-metal or Linux. | GNU make, gcc, Keil, IAR, Simplicity Studio (Eclipse) | Bitbucket pull requests with at least 2 approvers to merge | 31-60 seconds | 60 | 10 | 30 |
Show |
| Functionally, at my desk. We also use TeamCity. | currently, a SiLabs blue gecko (ARM cortex m4 w/ integrated bluetooth) | VS Code, IAR IDE, vendor-specific IDE's | Done on bitbucket | 1-5 minutes | 30% | 35% | 35% |
Show |
| Manually constructed test programs (no unit-test framework) put together on a case-by-case basis that run natively or on target depending on the situation. We also perform integration testing that is occasionally automated using Labview. | Many of our systems have multiple processors. Most are bare metal systems, and we use a non-real time flavor of Linux. | CCS (for MSP430), Doxygen, Notepad++, Cygwin, GCC/MinGW, GIT/Bitbucket | Conducted within Bitbucket Pull Requests, with out of band verbal and slack conversations. | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 35 | 35 |
Show |
| I add code to a main function that prints the result to stdout. Then, I'll check the printed result and compare it the expected result. | Bare metal systems and linux | Notepad++, Cygwin | Typically, every team member is added as a reviewer for pull requests. Two approvals are needed before merging to the master branch. | Under 10 seconds | 25 | 5 | 70 |
Show |
| Automated testing is handled by TeamCity. Manual testing is handled by our electronics lab technicians (we write a work order, someone picks it up, etc). We have a mix of unit tests, on-target tests, and static analysis. The amount of that depends on the project. Most of the unit-testing was implemented by a contractor. We've done some maintenance, but almost no expanding on that. We have a few on-target tests that we've implemented, but they are mostly black-box style tests. | Mostly bare-metal, 8051 or ARM. | Keil uVision, IAR, CCS, Simplicity Studio, gcc+make, Visual Studios, LabVIEW | We use crucible or bitbucket, depending on whether the project has been ported from SVN to git. | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| The most useful tests today are all manual and take a lot of time. We have some unit tests using cpputest, and it's growing, but at current levels benefits have not outweighed efforts....yet. | Linux, Windows | Qt Creator, NetBeans, Spyder | Usually too big, so suggestions rarely cause a noticeable impact | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| TDD | embedded avionics | GreenHills, vscode | comments go in, merge ensues (comments mostly ignored) | 1-2 hours | 30% | 50% | 20% |
Show |
| CppUTest for individual functions, integration tests for full system, and then user testing in a development environment | Windows 7 and 10 | QT Creator | gitlab merge requests | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 60 | 20 |
Show |
| Unit tests, integration tests in the HIL (Hardware In the Loop), and flight tests | x86 and ARM | Visual Studio Code, vim, spacemacs | Done using code reviews, sometimes done over the shoulder | 31-60 seconds | Not actively coding regularly at work | Not actively coding regularly at work | Not actively coding regularly at work |
Show |
| manual debugger-based testing. | The target is an embedded multicore processor. | GCC toolchain, vendor-provided debugger/loader/BSP generator | extremely unofficial at this time | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 0 | 50 |
Show |
| Was using Cpputest last year and found it very useful. On my current project, the testing is more at the system level with a development breakout board and breadboard... not enough time to unit test before delivery, but hopefully will have time to dive into that after delivery (which I realize is 100% ass backwards... but it's driven by our schedule and lack of resources). | Avnet PicoZed SOC | Xilinx Vivado/SDK (Eclipse) | Haven't had one yet for this project (time and resource limitation) | 31-60 seconds | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| I write unit and integration tests for it. | ? | vim and make mostly. Sometimes the intellij suite. | We use them. I try to do mostly substantive comments, but sometimes the pedantic "too many spaces" or "brackets on the wrong line" slips through. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Prototypes: A simple program that exercises the primary use cases Production Code: Unit tests with 100% block statement coverage, integration tests | Avionics hardware | Visual Studio Code, gcc | Quite thorough: must have 2+ approvers. >20% of our time each week is spent reviewing. | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 60 | 10 |
Show |
| Various levels of test ranging from code developed with TDD all the way to "give this to my (internal) customer and hope it still works because there is no other way to tell" | Combination of real time and not real time software on x86-based servers | clang or gcc, cmake, google test, vim | I hope people are paying attention | Under 10 seconds | 40 | 55 | 5 |
Show |
| cpputest on simarm and ontarget | embedded ARM SOC | Greenhills | lightweight delta reviews (github) | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| By writing a sizeable chunk of code, backfilling unit-tests to exercise its nominal behavior & edge-cases, and then iteratively developing both tests and code together. This is not real TDD because my tests usually don't come first. | Embedded microcontroller | vim, and the compiler, that's pretty much it... | all merge requests into our mainline development branch are peer-reviewed by at least 2 other developers | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| MATLAB unittest and Pytest (mostly have been working in MATLAB and Python recently) | Servers (for build tools) and embedded controllers (for flight code) | MATLAB IDE, Eclipse, Sublime, Jenkins, Git, Subversion | Varies by specific repo but usually GitLab reviews by 1-4 people | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| cpputest | micro-controller-based embedded platform. | Green Hills probe, Jenkins for CI, GIt for SCM. | Gitlab merge request | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| CPPUTest, python unittest, or ad hoc testing | C++ for a mission critical application | <cough>MinGW 4.6.2 and python 2.7</cough>, Qt Creator and PyCharm as IDEs | They take too long and nitpick about style as much as being about substance. | 5-30 minutes | 30% | 45% | 25% |
Show |
| Unit testing in CppUTest, manual system testing | Windows desktop applications | Qt Creator & Designer, PyCharm | Gitlab code review with at least one member of the team | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| CppUTest | Windows Desktop | CppUTest, GDB, ant, ivy, Qt Creator | We use gitlab, and review all of our code. The process is somewhat fast and usually helpful. | Under 10 seconds | 35 | 60 | 5 |
Show |
| In CI, sometimes at interfaces, with dependency injection, emulators, etc | It's a computer | gcc, gdb, MULTI, pdb, pytest, cpputest, valgrind, gperf, gcov, gprof, | 1 or more people, varies with content of MR | Under 10 seconds | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| go through entry and exit points of the code and attempt to exercise all these routes and get 100% code coverage | 32-bit unix RT | Visual Studio Code, Green Hills | we use gitlab for code reviews, any comment that is made on a code review must be answered, discussed, and resolved before the code review can be closed. | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 10 | 30 |
Show |
| ECP where each node in the ECP represents a single CPPUTest | Embedded platform/uController | VSCode, CPPUTest, Jenkins, Git, in-house tools | Code reviews are generally done on Gitlab | 31-60 seconds | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| Mix of light TDD, custom off-target test suite, manual testing. | PIC32, AWS EC2 | MPLAB X IDE, GCC | Code briefly reviewed by peer team members, but no specific review guidelines. | 31-60 seconds | 50% | 20% | 10% |
Show |
| usually via automated unit tests on a build server | embedded devices, FreeRTOS as well as Linux on ARM | vim, assorted *nix tools, make, gcc, IAR, git, | using bitbucket, git-based pull request process. 2 approvals required. | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 10 | 50 |
Show |
| Automated tests | Linux micro services, running in docker, hosted on Arnouse BioDigital controls | (C tools listed only) Vim, You Complete Me, Nerd Tree, Syntastic, clang, clang sanitizers, clang tidy, lldb, valgrind | Pull requests must be reviewed before check in. Also, code is often critiqued during retrospectives | Under 10 seconds | 80 | 10 | 10 |
Show |
| I use unit tests in some parts of the code, however I have difficulties to make the rest of the team use it. If I'm the only one using it, even if it helps during development, it becomes pointless for maintainability. The rest of the code is manually tested. This is something I would also like to understand, where shall I draw the line between unit and integration tests? | Currently working on an ESP32 project | make, cmake, Visual Studio Code, Sublime Text, terminal, git | I tend to focus on trying to find bugs instead of asking myself why is this done this or this other way | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| GTest & GMock. But writing test afterwards. But this tests are more for visual testing, not logical testing. (We are devolop a HMI) | PC Software which is later compiled for a ECU | Visual Studio 2005/2007 and its tools. During study Vim with gcc/clang and other console tools | Units (afterwards) in the current project. So we hope to see if the code do the same. But don't touch it, it runs and there are so much other thinks. Or "don't touch it, it will get yours " (C. Martins) | Under 10 seconds | 3 | 1 | 6 |
Show |
| I don't currently code. | n/a | Comfortable with emacs. Used to use Eclipse. | Fan of pair/mob programming. We did design and code reviews on aerospace stuff and they weren't super effective. | 2-4 hours | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Show |
| Unit testing (written after the fact), manual integration testing, automated integration testing (usually controlled by a test sequence which talks to to the target hardware) | Target code: variety of ARM/PIC/AVR systems, 8-bit to 64-bit, usually no OS. I also frequently program for POSIX systems | gcc/clang, clang-format, lizard, GitNStats, Jenkins, meson, ninja, gdb, openocd | I am the only developer, so I use self-review checklists. When on a team: all changes reviewed by 1-2 other programmers. I encourage clients to have the team define a review process & review criteria. | 31-60 seconds | 25% | 35% | 40% |
Show |
| After I write it (usually). | Primarily Linux hosts. | Sublime Text, PDB, GDB, MULTI | They are mandatory and gating for merge into master branches | Under 10 seconds | 55 | 35 | 10 |
Show |
| Not TDD :( I like to setup an integration workbench project alongside the product code and use that to drive general test development (Both Integration and Unit). Then once interfaces are stable I'll spin up a formal unit-test project and move my unit-tests over there. | Embedded Multi-Core Real-Time Network Device | C++ (Product), Python (Integration Testing), VIM, VSCode, Markdown + PlantUML (for documentation), Gitlab, Jenkins (CI/CD), Pytest (Integration Testing), CppUTest (Unit Testing) | Gitlab Merge Requests Yo! | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| b | c | gcc | b | Under 10 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Unit tests using cpputest, on sim & on target | Too new | VSC, probe to test on target | Too new | 31-60 seconds | 33 | 33 | 33 |
Show |
| Unit tests and system tests. | Real-time Linux based HIL systems. | QT Creator, GitKraken, Crucible | For flight code, crucible. For simulation code, immediate peer review. | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| For personal projects, I tend to write scripted integration tests. For work, Matlab unittest suite, Simulink Test suite, | native x86 Windows (personal), many (work) | Visual C++ 2010 (personal), Matlab 2016b/2017b (work) | Done with Fisheye/Crucible | 30-60 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Unittest and integration | Linux | Visual Studio | Required | Under 10 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| I use a unit testing framework and/or a debugger. | The STM32L476 discovery board (bare metal) and a PC-104 running QNX | Keil and QNX Momentics | No formal reviews. My students use my framework code and provide feedback. | 11-30 seconds | 20 (40 percent doing requirements and design) | 30 (mostly writing test cases) | 10 |
Show |
| Manually | Sensors & PC | VS and MPLAB X | na | 11-30 seconds | not sure | not sure | not sure |
Show |
| Programmer(s) are paired with QA tech(s). They participate together in creating the software specifications (algorithms, flow charts, etc.) Then, the programmer tests his own code, before handing it over to the QA tester. The QA tester often has a debugger, and will perform debugging tasks using it (i.e. insert breakpoints and look at internal variables/states). Other possible tests: - black-box testing - monkey tests - reusing code (however, this doesn't guarantee successful integration of this pre-tested code...) We are keenly aware that as applications get bigger, testing costs a lot, especially the regression tests, which should be automated somehow. | Embedded ARM MCUs, 16-bit MCUs, non-ARM 32-bit MCUs | Mostly IAR's suite of C cross-compilers/linkers/debuggers | Rarely done, unless we have a problem, and a programmer needs help | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| A mix of tdd and writing tests after the code. | arm cortex | gcc/msvc for testing, IAR for firmware | Generally done during merge/pull requests or through informal meetings | Under 10 seconds | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Some automated integrated tests, but a lot of manual | Custom boards | IAR, CCS, MPLAB, Atmel Studio | Requested by developer on as needed basis | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Off target unit testing with gcc and gtest. On target integration testing driving serial communication with pyunit. | Cortex M (stm32), baremetal | IAR | Pull requests through gitlab | 1-5 minutes | 25 | 25 (not separate phase) | 50 |
Show |
| I didn’t until just recetly. | Typically Cortex-M based embedded systems. | Eclipse, Kiel, IAR, | Formally - non-existent. | 1-5 minutes | 65 | 10 | 25 |
Show |
| Limited Unit Test via gtest Manual Testing Pull Requests | Cypress PSoC4, PIC, STM32 | Vim, uC Vendor IDE/Toolchains, Team Foundation Server (PR's, CI), VisualStudio (when forced), Sigrok, Tiobe TiCS, | TFS Pull Requests | 1-5 minutes | 15 | 10 | 75 |
Show |
| Mostly manual. | Several embedded systems ranging from 8-32 bit. Used in power electronics | Eclipse, MPLabX | No code is allowed to be pushed into our master branche(s), unless reviewed. | 31-60 seconds | 25 | 50 | 25 |
Show |
| Manual testing | STM ARM + FreeRTOS based (Mosttly) | Eclipse GCC | peer code review (gerrit) | 1-5 minutes | 4 | 2 | 3 |
Show |
| - Reviewing each others code - TiCS analyze tool from Tiobe (https://www.tiobe.com/tics/tics-framework/) | STM32L4, STM32F2, PIC24HJ, PIC18F | Eclipse + gcc, MPLAB X + XC16 + C18 | Using Gerrit server (https://www.gerritcodereview.com/) to review each others code | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| TIOBE software rating and test in hardware application | DSP real time control of power electronics | Code Composer Studio | - | 1-5 minutes | ? | ? | ? |
Show |
| preferably with automated unit en integration tests | Everything except non-arm bare metal | VSCode | 4 eyes minimum | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 40 | 10 |
Show |
| I don't :) | Mostly developed windows interfaces with hardware. This includes RS232, RS485 and other serial protocols. As part of testability mostly worked with Labwindows CVI and GPIB communication. | Labwindows CVI | somehow no-one ever asked me... | 31-60 seconds | 50% | 25% | 25% |
Show |
| Functional testing by hand. | STM32 (ARM Cortex) | Eclipse, Git, GCC | Through a Gerrit server | 1-5 minutes | 70 | 20 | 10 |
Show |
| Different methods, sometimes writing dedicated code to test functionality. | STM32 / freeRTOS, TI dsp28x / bare metal platform and Microchip bare metal. | editors, compilers, simulators, etc | code review / merge to the master branche is done / managed by Gerrit. SmartGit flow. | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 50 | 30 |
Show |
| EmbUnit tests Matlab tests | Win32, HALO | Visual Studio | I feel some of them are superficial and just based on the code aesthetics and not on the logic or efficiency. | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 10 | 50 |
Show |
| I have recently joined this company. But in the past My code was first developed and tested in Matlab environment. I had then a VS projects which load Matlab engine run the code and get the result back and used it to compare/debug the C/C++ code. | In house DSP system | Visula Studio / In house IDE | Used in house code review software | Under 10 seconds | 20% | 40% | 40% |
Show |
| Unit tests System-level test Touch test (manual exercise of some subset of use cases) | Cirrus DSP | Toolchain provided by Synopsys including their IDE Notepad++ SonarQube cppcheck | We use CodeCollaborator for online code review - at least 2 reviewers per review | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| manual testing, jenkins unit testing and google test framework. | ARM Cortex M0+ and a DSP for audio applications (headsets) | Keil, Eclipse, VIM, ARM compiler, Meson, jenkins, make, git, gerrit. | We review code using Gerrit. | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Unit tests for unity/cmock, googletest, junit | ARM based deeply embedded, OS-less ARM based NucleusOS Windows based unit tests framework Java | DS-5 CodeBench MSVC Eclipse/Maven | Gerrit based reviews on every commit | 1-5 minutes | 33 | 33 | 33 |
Show |
| Existing unit tests, compliance tests, manual execution. | Embedded ARM Cortex | Keil, Git, Sublime | Gerrit code reviews among team members. Need a "+2" and passing unit tests to merge. Most developers can give +1, except for admins. | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 30 | 60 |
Show |
| unit tests, integration tests, full regression test (system wide) | ARM Cortex A53 running RTOS | Mentor Codebench, ARM GNU toolchain, Microsoft Visual Studio | gerrit. not much else to say really... | 1-5 minutes | 45 | 30 | 25 |
Show |
| unit tests, integration tests, full regression test (system wide) | ARM Cortex A53 running RTOS | Mentor Codebench, ARM GNU toolchain, Microsoft Visual Studio | gerrit. not much else to say really... | 1-5 minutes | 45 | 30 | 25 |
Show |
| Write unit test code to test the agreed API. Use case testing for end-to-end functionality and integration. | Embedded, proprietary. | VisualStudio VisualStudio Code Codebench DS-5 | Through gerrit | 31-60 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| unit and integration testing based on googletest | ARM on an ASIC | Eclipse and Visual Studio | Still have some to learn, my code usually has to be reviewed about 3 times before going to the master branch | 1-5 minutes | 5 | 2 | 3 |
Show |
| Using Logic Analyzers to monitor proper execution, Unit tests to look at modular code, ... | I work on ARM M0+ and Arm M4 (+ possible bluetooth SOC) devices. Some of my projects also involve system tests involving a host pc or smart phone app. | Keil, Jlink, Salea Logic analyser, WireShark, MCUXpresso | Most of my reviews are on small features or patches. I tend to focus on readability and correct logic. There's much to the part that I'm still understanding so, this is what I focus on. | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Manual testing on hardware and in simulation. Jenkins unit test on hardware and in simulation. | Win32 simulation system. Cirrus DSP cores. | Synopsys tool chain Visual studio | We use code collaborator for reviews with at least 2 peer reviewers for a review. | 30-60 minutes | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| The tools that we use provide a simulator that we use for initial testing (development). This simulator is also used for system testing (complete system tests). We develop with multi-platform support in mind, and one of the platforms is win32. Every time we create a new block (module), we write unit tests that run on the win32 platform (c mockery framework). These tests contain short vectors that exercise as much of the code as possible but still keeping a small simple test file. For complete and more comprehensive testing, the system tests are in place. The final test is to run the SW on the HW and evaluate its results for correctness. | The target system is a small embedded dsp with very small memory (around 8k). This has 24-bit support and is optimised for audio processing at the instruction and memory architecture levels. | in-house built c,c++ compiler | We do reviews using the Gerrit/Git framework. Upon submission of the code, two peers must review and +2 the change (and the automatic build job must succeed) before the code can be merged. | 1-5 minutes | 2 | 5 | 3 |
Show |
| 1 - unit tests of modules using embunit; 2 - system integration tests with real-world stimuli; 3 - compliance tests | ARM Cortex M0+ -based SoC | Keil armcc for target and unit test builds gcc for unit test builds eclipse for IDE bullseye for coverage python for misc tools | our *intention* is a codecollaborator review for every SVN commit; but it tends to be at most a review for every feature developed/bug fixed | Under 10 seconds | 25 | 50 | 25 |
Show |
| CppUTest and ad-hoc manual testing | bare-metal ARM, linux ARM, Linux x86 | GCC, make, qt creator, vs code, git, svn | standard practice and fairly rigorous | 31-60 seconds | 15 | 5 | 10 |
Show |
| A combination of running our CppUTest suite and manual testing. | An STM32 Microcontroller running no OS. | vim, Visual Studio Code, gcc, gdb, valgrind, eclipse, openocd | All developers on a team are encouraged to participate in code reviews. A given PR cannot be merged unless it passes all Unit Tests in CI and has been approved by one or more developers and blocked by no one. | 5-30 minutes | 30% | 20% | 50% |
Show |
| More and more unit testing with lots and lots of manual integration testing. | embedded linux x86 | qt creator, subversion, smartsvn, make, cpputest | We have them regularly now which is good, but I would still consider them unfocused. | 1-5 minutes | 33 | 33 | 33 |
Show |
| A significant amount of manual testing to validate graphics. I've recently mocked/stubbed the OpenGL ES 2.0 api allowing me to get more of this area under tests. This doesn't remove the need for manual testing of graphical elements however... | This varies per project. Currently my target is a raspberry pi compute module 1 running a customized version of Rasbian lite. | gvim, Visual Studio Code, gdb, git, and subversion. | This changes based on the project. For one, there is no reviews that take place. For another we utilize git hub's pull request review mechanic with defined guidelines. We use other tools for other projects. | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| I do unit testing most of the time. I tend to do it after the fact though. I write some code, do some debug and manual test iterations to get it working, then write unit tests to cover the use cases. | target is SkyView app running under linux on custom hardware. Sometimes the target can be an app running on an arm processor that communicates with SkyView over a serial or USB interface. | QT Creator, GDB, make, printf, cpputest, sometimes other IDEs to build software for different processors, etc | See above! I think we do pretty well at code reviews. | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Typically through manual test. If it's a piece of critical infrastructure, I'll create unit tests. | I don't really have one, I'm sort of all over the place. | PyCharm, Jenkins, Qt Creator, Visual Studio | Excellent, I credit most of my development as a programmer to the feedback I've received in code reviews. | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 60 | 20 |
Show |
| Try to run it. | n/a | Notepad++, Arduino, Processing | Rarely. Not a SWE. | 11-30 seconds | 60% | 5% | 10% |
Show |
| Dynamic simulation. | Embedded: arm Non imbedded: posix compliant | vi, Qt Creator, cscope, gdb | Informal. | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Recently been working on legacy code with no unit test integration. Code is tested my manually exercising the functionality | Instrument control for a fluid handling instrument, written primarily in C#, with a UWP frontend | Visual Studio Git | Primarily done using diff comparison in Git They're not as effective as they could be | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 10 | 30 |
Show |
| I do unit testing, integration testing, and if needed system testing. The verification teams do the majority of system testing. I always step through every line of new code in the debugger to check that it is behaving exactly like I intended it to behave. We have builds of the software that run in windows allowing us to do much of the testing without the real hardware. | The target system is a hematology analyzer. It drives stepper motors, valves, sensors, lasers, and other hardware. The data acquisition is complicated. Over 10 MB of data is collected for each specimen. There are many threads. | Our currently released product uses VxWorks Tornado, Green Hills Multi c++ compiler, Visual Studio, and Rational Rose. | We do multi-pass inspections with at least 2 developers. | 5-30 minutes | 15 | 15 | 15 |
Show |
| Informal unit test methods | .NET | Visual Studio, Spyder | Done through github pull requests | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| We perform all 3 levels of testing (System, Integration & Unit Test), but the Unit Test it is very limited probably covering less than 50% of the code, perhaps even less than that. | Intel-Atom CPU running "WindRiver Linux" (It is a YOCTO distribution with patches and security support provided by WindRiver) | Visual Studio 2017 (MSFT C++, C), GNU C++ compiler, Elipse-IDE with GNU C++, C. Rational Rose for Design Modeling. | We use 2 reviewers (Safety and standard) for each code change. | 5-30 minutes | 35 | 45 | 20 |
Show |
| n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 4-8 hours | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Show |
| For automated testing, most recently we use Google Test/Google Mock. Prior to this, we used a homegrown solution that is comprised of a collection of Perl scripts. We also do manual testing. | Board with an Intel Atom CPU running embedded Linux with real-time extensions. | Visual Studio 2017 | We first personally inspect our own code, using a checklist-driven approach. After the personal inspection, there is an inspection by one or more teammates (usually two). | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Unit test and system test. | Multi-platform. | Visual Studio, Tornado | Minimum 2 to 3 reviewers. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| I have in the past created unit tests as I write the code. Currently I have been manually testing the code after I write the code. | Windows 10 embedded | Currently I am using Visual Studio | The code review consists of sending the code (differences report) to other developers to be inspected for defects and coding standard violations. Any findings are reported an then corrected by the developer. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| None | embedded | VS | Very important | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 0 | 30 |
Show |
| Current assignment is to learn the old code-base from a recently acquired product line for maintenance releases. | Target is windows pc workstation system manager software for urinalysis running on XP or W7. | Visual Studio 2010, 2012 | Two person peer review with Microsoft TFS (team foundation server). | 30-60 minutes | ? | ? | ? |
Show |
| In-house test harness, Microsoft Studio Testing Tools | Pic, Arm | Visual Studio, IAR Embedded Workbench, MPLab | Authors performs inspection of the code then submit their code for inspection by two peers. We follow a multi-pass checklist delineated in the TSP/PSP process. | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| Some unit tests, some integration tests, some end-to-end tests, some manual tests, some automated tests, some regression tests, some code checkers (valgrind etc.), some beta deployments, ... | Linux-on-PC | vi/vim, GNU toolchain, gdb, printf, bash, Linux utilities | It is hard to get the right level of communication. Either nIt-picking or glossing prevails. | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 10 | 50 |
Show |
| Unit test, test applications, integration test as well as end-to-end test | Linux, Windows, MAC | git, gcc, Visual Studio, Visual Studio Code, vim, gdb, windbg | We use gitlab for code reviews, must be approved by two peers before merging can take place. I would say people are pretty involved in our code reviews. | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 15 | 5 |
Show |
| we don't have unit tests. We do everything end to end w/ a combination of python and manual testing. Our current challenge is dealing w/ a codebase, that is maintained by two separate teams, w/o a lot of unit tests, and no will/desire to change. | macOS. Some higher level, w/ some low level mixed in | Xcode (terrible for C++ development) VMware Fusion, Python/pytest for testing jenkins svn | we do have code reviews but I feel we can standardize them more. Also we use review board and svn which feels like its from the 90s/ | 1 day or more | 1 | 7 | 2 |
Show |
| TDD for new projects - personal projects Integrated system test for legacy code at work | Legacy C (Linux kernel) C++ (Linux daemon) | CLion Vim CMake Git Jenkins | Review by two other developers required for all commits, enforced by Gitlab. | 5-30 minutes | 5 | 20 | 15 |
Show |
| Unit tests, automated functional and end-to-end tests. | Linux | pycharm, git, python/pytest | Source code requires 2 reviewers to approve, automation code requires 1 approval. Both run through a build pipeline with unit tests & linter | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| We're just now implementing unit testing. So, prior to that, it was write code, test the changes and debug any issues. We used unit tests in my last company, but the vast majority of the tests were written after the code was complete. However, there was still great benefit achieved as it greatly reduced the time needed for testing and debugging issues as that was resolved during the unit testing phase. | MacOS | Xcode, VI, LLDB | Our code is reviewed via merge requests and informally requires at least 1 approval. | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| cpputest or pytest | Linux | CMake, conan, cpputest | We use gitlab, 2 approvals are required before code can be merged | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Functional gray-box tests. | Linux (CentOS, Red Hat, ...) | cscope, ctags, gcc, vim | Gitlab MR, Reviewboard, or other code review tools. | 2-4 hours | 25% | 60% | 15% |
Show |
| write unit test | linux kernel, embedded system | gcc, gdb | peer review, code refectory? | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Robot framework or python scripts along with using glove to determine how much of my code was touched | Linux | Command line, vim, gcc | Developers look at the review and see if anything stands out to them | 31-60 seconds | 25 | 25 | 50 |
Show |
| Current product does a mix of automated test and manual test. | Don't know. | PyCharm for IDE, Jenkins as CI | We use a mix of Gitlab and Reviewboard. | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Unit test, run time and debug | Stable, light weight, and simplest. | Sublime, Notepad++, Vim, Eclipse, VS | Self review, compare with other source | 11-30 seconds | 1 | 2 | 2 |
Show |
| Manual test | Smartwatches | IAR | Mostly self-review | 5-30 minutes | 3 | 3 | 4 |
Show |
| Yes | Embedded system | IAR | Be reviewed by my team lead. | 1-5 minutes | 3 | 3 | 4 |
Show |
| Manual test | Validate hardware at the factory | Pycharm | Manual code review and by myself | 1-5 minutes | 3 | 4 | 3 |
Show |
| Write tests for each function, try to achieve high code coverage | Keil, IAR, j-Link | Draw flowchart -> Flowchart review -> Code based on flowchart -> Do unit test -> Code review with leader. Try to cover as many corner cases as possible. | Under 10 seconds | 60% | 20% | 20% |
Show |
|
| No | Stable and no bug | IAR | Test then fix bug | 1-2 hours | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| Write simple unit test such as create many scenarios for test. | Develop/bring up device driver | IAR, Keil | Team leader will review code before code is released | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| manual, black box/white box testing | MCU | IAR IDE/Compiler, Segger for debugging | one-to-one | 5-30 minutes | 4 | 3 | 3 |
Show |
| Create test cases to test main functionalbility (normal operation) of the driver/module. In my point of view, create abnomal test cases will take a lot of time since it will need many test cases, so I just test if the functionality of the driver / module are working correctly. Doing self review the code / the design of the driver / module to find out if any corner case that cause the system running incorrectly/unstable. | Embedded system | IAR | Doing self code review to find out if any corner case that cause the system running incorrectly or unstable based on the design and limitation of the driver / module. | 31-60 seconds | 50% | 20% | 30% |
Show |
| Write test cases and do manual test | Standardize the unit test system for everyone to follow. We can add more test cases and re-use the old test cases for a test module. | Keil, IAR | Ask somebody else to review my code(pairing review). | 31-60 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| Manually | WearOS | QT | My leader reviews. | 31-60 seconds | 5 | 4 | 5 |
Show |
| Debug, register and memory watch | Microcontroller | Keil, MATLAB, CCS | N/A | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| I use Robolectric to create test code | arm64 | Android Studio | I create pull request for each task, then other people will do review on it. | 31-60 seconds | 60 | 10 | 30 |
Show |
| Using NUnit and CPPUTest to test our C# console application as well as generated C++ code. | Flight systems on a rocket. | Rider | Done via online merge request discussions. | 11-30 seconds | 60 | 20 | 20 |
Show |
| My calculations/scientific software is thoroughly tested generally with comparisons against known values from the literature and image tests to ensure that plots are working correctly. My embedded code... not so much. C being my second language I'm less familiar with the testing capabilities. | My target systems are instruments that are deployed to collect data in the field, generally stm32 based (some are propeller based). | PyCharm/CLion (same tool really), eclipse based tools, atom | On projects with multiple people (not nearly all of them) we have a mandatory review by at least one other dev before merging. | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| CppuTest; integration tests | . | vs code, gcc, misc other | Required 2, up to 5 or 6 depending on functionality. May do offline design review for new components. | 11-30 seconds | 20 | 60 | 20 |
Show |
| A combination of unit testing and manual testing, with manual being more common. | Avr 8 and 32 bit systems, and embedded linux | Atmel studio, pycharm, visual studio code, visual studio, yocto. | Code reviews are rather informal and mostly involve demoing the working firmware to colleagues. | 30-60 minutes | 2 | 3 | 5 |
Show |
| pytest is my go to lately. | I tend to work in systems testing lately, with a lesser portion of my development on posix environments | gcc, pytest, cppunit, pycharms, jenkins | I work in an environment in which a minimum of two colleagues have to review code changes. These reviews range in content from critiques regarding readability to compliance with safety standards and requirement satisfaction. | 1-5 minutes | 35 | 35 | 30 |
Show |
| pytest | ubuntu, docker, but our team manages infrastructure for rm57 and tms570 based system | VS code Jenkins Docker | approvals in GitLab, pipeline passes in CI is mergable into master branch. | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| I'm currently not a developer. | Embedded Linux. | Visual Studio Code | N/A | 1-5 minutes | N/A | 7 hours | 1 hour |
Show |
| execution | windows, real time embedded, arduino | visual studio | na | 31-60 seconds | na | na | na |
Show |
| TDD for new code, manual spot testing for everything else. | Various - bare metal embedded (C/C++), RTOS embedded (C), future development on embedded Linux (C++). | CLion, CMake, Vim | None for most legacy projects. Process using Bitbucket tools is evolving based on work in greenfields project. | Under 10 seconds | 70 | 20 | 10 |
Show |
| Mostly using DLP (Debug Later Programming) approach. Have read your TDD using embedded C book and have tried to start implementing TDD using Unity. Time spent in development is very heavy in code to start, then most of the time is spent testing, then most of the time is spent debugging. Continuous testing with the same test set is not done. | Agriculture control systems and agriculture sensing applications. | MPLAB X IDE, Unity, MPLAB REAL ICE, Atollic TrueSTUDIO. | There is no code review process. Development team usually consists of one individual. | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| I have just started to use Unit test to test my code | Embedded system for agriculture industry | CLion, MPLAB X, QtCreator | We have just started to do code reviews; we use bitbucket to interact with each other to do reviews. | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| The hard way! Depends on the system/application, during development I will try to construct different conditions (HW signals or comm messages) to verify expected operation including error handling (not doing what it should not do) | Current target is STM32 Arm M4 processor running FreeRTOS. Development includes C & C++. Primary function as a weight/force sensor. Primary interface is CAN comms. | IAR Embedded Workbench | We used to do them! :-/ We had tried the free-form throw it on a projector and everyone talk about it, give comments. Very limited success at trying to methodically walk thru line by line as a group. Also tried a code review tool but not used now | 11-30 seconds | 25 | 10 | 15 |
Show |
| Compiling and running it. | I do not have one at the moment. | Microsoft Visual Studio, Apple Xcode | I have worked at companies that practice code reviews enforcing certain style guidelines and practices. | 31-60 seconds | 35% | 20% | 45% |
Show |
| Google Test based unit testing | ARM based MCU's | CLion IDE in the past I have extensively used almost all famous IDE's for ARM MCU's | I am mostly on the receiving end of code reviews where my lead reviews my code. It depends on the task that how good or bad is the review outcome after first review | 1-5 minutes | 5/10 | 3/10 | 2/10 |
Show |
| ad hoc unit testing automated gui testing | embedded software running on linux embedded software running on micro controller | Qt framework c++,c++11,c++14 | Peer review via desk check or reviewing a patch | 1-5 minutes | 25 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| debugging, line by line. Minor test functions | embedded hardware - varies | IAR, | rarely | 1-5 minutes | 10 | 50 | 60 |
Show |
| GUI testing, so manually do what squish could at the moment. | linux. | VS code, gdb. | quite lacking, there is now the ability to see everyone's changes through phabricator but it's not manditory. | 1-5 minutes | 7 | 1 | 5 |
Show |
| gtest for core modules. Manually elsewhere. | Mostly Linux semi-embedded | gdb | Occasional only. | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Manual testing is the current method. Strongly want to get TDD and unit tests as standard practice. | ARM Cortex PWM, I2C, CAN, UART, and Wifi. | CLion Segger JLink Plus | Due to small team it ammounts to me reviewing and cleaning my own code before committing to version control. Code is altered by two other team members, currently without review. I'm currently introducing new code processes into the company. | 1-5 minutes | 40% | 10% | 50% |
Show |
| Client dependent; usually a mix of manual and unit tests. At home, manual testing for simple programs, but unit tests for more complicated ones. | Usually .NET desktop development (WinForms, WPF), but various C and C++ in the past. | Microsoft Visual Studio exclusively for about 20 years. | Client dependent - all over the map. | 11-30 seconds | 70 | 10 | 20 |
Show |
| Unit tests for small modules. System tests, generally using a PC tool automating one end of the communication link. | Nordic nRF52 series (ARM Cortex-M4) | GCC Eclipse Visual Studio for PC test tools. | Formal part of our software development process, using Gerrit. All code requires at least one reviewer to approve before integration. | 31-60 seconds | 20 | 60 | 20 |
Show |
| - Run code online, and using text based logging, confirm that the expected output is obtained - Enforce correct behavior using assertions and catch assertions with a debugger | ARM Cortex M4 SPI, I2C Custom RTOS | Eclipse | Code reviews require the owner to verify, another person to review the coding standards and functionality, and third person to approve the change. | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Google and Qt tests cover around 60% of our very large code base. Many of these test cases are not unit tests in a narrower sense but are integration tests. The remaining tests are done manually using a GUI client. | We develop for a Linux platform with arm v5 and v7 processors. The device is a management console for cooling controllers (if that's the right term in English). | Qt Creator, Git | If branches are merged and it is nontrivial, a review is made. | 5-30 minutes | 25 | 25 | 50 |
Show |
| Badly. We have Overnight regression tests, but code/feature coverage is very patchy, and bugs frequently get through to released code. Test are normally only run on main branch, so bugs are often not detected until after code is merged this makes re-working code to fix things slow and difficult. Module level testing often tests functions in a way that is not representative of the way they are used in released code. Often a lot of testing done by the developer does not end up in regression tests | Windows/PC | Matlab Visual studio GIT/Bitbucket JIRA | We carry out code reviews when anyone merges code onto the master branch. It is often difficult for the people reviewing the code to understand the feature (or the code) | Under 10 seconds | 30 | 35 | 35 |
Show |
| using test harnesses, write test scripts to test combination of variables such that 100% code coverage is achieved. Write test scripts to break the code and define the behaviour if it happens in production code | Windows/PC | matlab, eclipse (occassionally) | Reviewee shall give a code walk thru to reviewer(s) to procide background of the feature or bugfix or enhancement changes. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Use regression test | Checking signals captured against what stipulated in 3GPP specs. | Editor: MVS Version control: git | We do peer review. | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Random testing configuration (using generation/analysis tools) | Windows machines | - | Minimal/none | 1-5 minutes | 6 | 2 | 2 |
Show |
| 1) debugging particular test cases 2) regression test- which generates randomized test cases. | I am not sure if you mean the operating system, or something else. Anyways, I am working on windows. | I have been primarily working in MATLAB for a while now. So, I don't really use any development tools. | I haven't had any formal code reviews yet. | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| NUnit SW-component testing and test on complete ECU in HW rigs. | Several different ECU's in 2 different generations. One Motorola based architecture and one Intel based. Embedded ECU's, with several CAN and LIN buses, for communication. | Vector davinci for autosar. Microsoft Visual Studio with NUnit for coding and component testing. gradle for building. | I work in maintainance, so we normally only use buddy reviews before merging in GIT. | 5-30 minutes | 47,5 | 47,5 | 5 |
Show |
| component test/unit test, HIL test of ECU, system test of end2end functions with all related ECUs | Closed loop control system distributed on two I/O ECUs in the truck, running on MPC574x family CPUs | MS visual studio and Vector Autosar toolchain | it depends on who you ask to do the review, but ranging from only style to functional. in most cases, we do not review test cases. | 31-60 seconds | 70 | 20 | 10 |
Show |
| Manual debugging, trial and error for the test environment. Test cases in test suites to test end user functionality in our products we build and deliver. | Instrument cluster for commercial vehicles. Running Autosar "logica components" and HMI. | Mostly Visual Studio. | - | 1-2 hours | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| Unit testing and SW component testing with google test Black box testing HIL with pytest. | Telematics system, two CPUs + power CPU (ARM), one handling vehicle interfaces | VSCode, Eclipse, Git, PC lint, Jenkins, Bullseye code coverage | We use Atlassian tool chains at Volvo -> Bitbucket for reviews | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 60 | 10 |
Show |
| Unit tests, tests on component level after changes are integrated, HIL test in system rig and test in truck. | Instrument cluster, displays to provide driver information | Vector Davinci, CANoe, Jenkins, Visual Studio, PN-Tool, SE-Tool | Mostly handled within the team. We can't merge without approval. Checking that logic looks correct (have we understood the requirements the same way), new Misra warnings aren't introduced, unit tests cover all scenarios, the code looks pretty, etc | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| unitary SIL and Inegration tests on HIL | PowerPc 32 bit architecture MPCXXX familly CPU | code generators | minimum in pairs in front of the pull request | 11-30 seconds | 50% | 30% | 20% |
Show |
| Unit testing using NUint and visual studio, Verification test benches | trucks | Visual Studio, Vector DaVinci | Peer reviews, formal rviews for critical changes | 2-4 hours | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| By manually comparing the actual and the expected behaviour. | I hope this information is confidential, so I do not want to disclose. | Visual Studio Code | I review the code as if I'm writing a code again | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Unit test | Embedeed system | Visual studio, vector CANoe, wireshark | Try to read the code as i have not seen it befire and can i then understand it. How easy is it to make changes. | 1-5 minutes | 3 | 5 | 4 |
Show |
| Mostly ECU-tests and bench tests | Sensor fusion node | Vector Davinci Developer Vector Davinci Configurator MS Visual Studio Notepad++ Cygwin... | Code reviews are P2P using stash. No formal protocol used | 5-30 minutes | 15 | 5 | 80 |
Show |
| 1) Unit Test within Debugger 2) System Verification Tests through Test Plans | TI-MSP430 with home grown scheduler (No OS) and written in C. | IAR Workbench, PCAN Explorer (CAN protocol tracing), TeraTerm (Serial Traffic tracing), Enterprise Architect (Detailed Design), Understand (Code Analysis), Perforce SCM (Source Code Mgmt and Code Reviews), and Helix (Bug and Test Tracking) | Done through Perforce SCM tool. | 31-60 seconds | 2 | 5 | 3 |
Show |
| Unit tests, ad-hoc, system level tests | Mostly Cortex-M 0/3/4 chips in consumer robots. | gcc, clang, Segger JLink hardware and software | Required for every commit. They’re generally helpful. | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Manually with some automation. | MSP430 | IAR | We perform code reviews. Just quickly examine software. | 11-30 seconds | 5 | 5 | 5 |
Show |
| Manual regression tests; bench-top testing using the debugger; manually-written test programs that run on my PC | We use MSP430 microcontrollers and are transitioning to ARM. | We use IAR Embedded Workbench, SurroundSCM, and HelixALM. | Code reviews are performed separately using SurroundSCM. | 31-60 seconds | 20% | 50% | 30% |
Show |
| I first use unit tests, then when I finished a library or executable I write component tests (black body) and after integrating my piece of software with other libs or modules I write integration tests and lastly I test the whole system with system tests. I write unit tests with the same language used for the component, but then upwards in the test pyramid I use python for testing. | At my current employee I use Zync7000 target small 32 bits processor, also IMX51 from Zylinx. | Ubuntu OS: Visual Code, bash, tmux and CMake. | They are quite new for this company but helps to improve on knowledge, best practices and spread new ideas/knowledge. | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| integration software-in-the-loop or target processor and hardware testing | Floating point processors for production Powertrain Control | ~ | widely varying | 5-30 minutes | ~ | ~ | ~ |
Show |
| Manual testing of new features using the debugger. Then sometimes test cases are created to exercise those features. | An online gas analyzer with 2 main target boards both running an AM335x A8, once of which has a FPGA. There are additional sub-boards for a display, analog and digital I/O, and interface to the sensor. | - Visual Studio with 4 build configurations for firmware (2 for PC simulation and 2 for the target) and for C# test case development - IAR for debugging on the target - PC lint - Nant - Nunit - Narrange, StyleCop - Git Extensions, GitLab | They are informal and often times done behind the scenes when someone is done with their branch and requests a merge into develop with GitLab | 31-60 seconds | 50 | 25 | 25 |
Show |
| Combination of unit tests, integration tests, and testing as deployed | Engine controller in a vehicle | Matlab (with Simulink and code generation) Editor for C code | I am in research. The code is reviewed by the production team at handoff. | 30-60 minutes | 25 | 35 | 40 |
Show |
| All my boards use USB for communications, I write Windows apps to test my boards. These boards are part of a video slot machine which runs under Linux | As I mentioned we make video slot machines, my boards monitor doors, switches, temps as well as drives sound and lighting | Atmel Studio, Code Composer Studio and Visual Studio | As part of my release process I go through a peer review. | Under 10 seconds | 70 | 15 | 15 |
Show |
| googletest for unit/integration tests. System tests are done using an in-house test harness. | Mostly Windows. User and kernel components. | Visual Studio 2017 | Wish we did them. | Under 10 seconds | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Mostly in-system tests | Gaming machines | Code Composer Studio | Visual review | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 15 | 35 |
Show |
| Some unit tests, mostly system/QA testing | ARM based MCU | IAR, Cygwin, SVN, Git | After each ~2 week sprint we have 2 days of Code Review and test. Any meaningful changes should (and for the most part are) sent out to two other people, and one tester (who may also be one of the two reviewers). | 1-5 minutes | 70 | 10 | 20 |
Show |
| Manually, with units tests for some very small libraries | Microchip PIC32 microcontrollers, usually | MPLAB | Not as efficient as I would like. As a newly forming group all our processes are in infancy. I am also usually the sole final say for code reviews, I'd like to transition that to others once we get more settled. | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| yes | Docker Engine | Xcode, Eclipse/SpringBoot, Visual Studio, Vi, | Pair program all production code. Spend at least 5 minutes making the code better before checking in. | 11-30 seconds | 90 | 5 | 5 |
Show |
| logging, making codes using gtest | webOS based on linux | source insight | . | Under 10 seconds | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| using python code. emit ipc command as luna-api and verify the log message. | tv | vi | using Gerrit. reviewed by some co-workers. | 30-60 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| integration test and g-test | linux | Visual Studio Code | check-list made by my part | 2-4 hours | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Although I don't write test code directly, I guide our part member to set-up test plan for each requirements before developing them. And I review test plan is enough to meet requirement and check any regression. | Arm-based SoC Linux environment | Gcc Cmake | I don't understand this question | 1 day or more | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Show |
| Using an auto test script implemented using Shell script and Python. | LG webOS TV | Visual Studio Code | The company is using a git. | 5-30 minutes | - | - | - |
Show |
| using debug print | . | VI, Sourceinsight | Check the main routine, not necessary code, optimization. and extensibility | 30-60 minutes | 2 | 3 | 5 |
Show |
| I've recently moved embedded linux system to WEB back-end field. Now I've recently tested WEB API by mocking web-server with nock. | Web server | CLion, Eclipse, IntelliJ, PyCharm, QNX momentics, Visual Studio code CMake, Make, Gradle GoogleTest, GoogleMock, Cpputest, JUnit, Mockito, TestFx, PowerMock, PIT(MutationTest), Pytest, sonarQube, Cppcheck, gcov/lcov, Cobertura, Jacoco, LLVM Fuzzer | Not properly conducted | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| I typically do system test. | LInux | Source insight / Croess toolchain | Peer review(Logic review) + code review(coding standard) | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| I test what I changed manually. Then I test integration test cases, manually also. | Linux | Visual Code Editor Cross compiler Qt Creator | Peer review with gerrit system. | Under 10 seconds | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| using gTest | ARM based embedded system | gdb | I focus on like below for our source code - Easy to debug - Easy to understand code flow - Not to long function and file size - Separate between pure function and side effect | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| I do unit test. | Linux | VI | I use gerrit review | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| define TC & execute in TC system | webOS TV | gcc, vim | with team reviewer | 31-60 seconds | 6 | 2 | 2 |
Show |
| I test my code as requirement. | linux embedid system | vi editor and oe build | I do peer review | 1-5 minutes | 5 | 3 | 2 |
Show |
| Differential tests | Customized microcontroller system comprised of an Arm M0+ controller and an MSP430 compatible core | Cygwin, gcc, make, svn, IAR embedded workbench | Used occationally in critical sections | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| RUn the code | No | PC | na | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 30 | 10 |
Show |
| Debugging tools and oscilloscopes | I don't know much about the target system | uVision, Atmel Studio, Visual Studio | I dont know much about the code reviews | 31-60 seconds | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| Load the code onto the target and run the system in a series of predetermined scenarios. | The target system is an automotive fluid dispenser. It allows a user to enter a work order and the dispenser will automatically dispense the proper amount of fluid. | Eclipse, CoceComposer, IAR | Unsure of company code review practices. Personally, I test until a bug is found, and then review code applicable to that bug to determine the cause. | 11-30 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Manually on production hardware. | I've developed mostly on the microchip PIC32 platform, operating a task-based RTOS. | MPLAB X IDE suite, microchip ICD 3 programmer, some work done on TI code composer IDE | We don't typically do code reviews. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| On a harness | ARMs mainly | Various Eclipse & Studio-based IDEs. | There are none here | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 55 | 15 |
Show |
| In all honesty, White-box unit testing post development. | All Badger Meter Flow Instrumentation Products | Visual Studio Professional 2015/2017, Visual Studio Enterprise 2017, Eclipse, NetBeans, Git Bash, TortoiseSVN, | Often review code for clarity and stream-lined functionality. Code should perform its function and perform it well. | 11-30 seconds | 50% | 20% | 30% |
Show |
| Functional testing during development and regression testing before release | Various Microcontrollers and Processors | Atmel Studio, MPLab, Code Composer Studio | Testing Based. If I identify a bug during testing I review the related code. | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| Stepping through code and functional testing in hardware | Sample board connected through J-Tag. The system is IAR. | IAR embedded workbench | none | 11-30 seconds | 30 | 40 | 30 |
Show |
| System, Integration (between feature configurations), step thru and debugging each path individually, occasional unit test source code is written | PCB board using Microchip SAM L22 | Atmel Studio | Individual, after testing code and prior to committal, I perform a code differential review with prior repository version to make sure changes are in alignment with expectations and that no rogue changes are remaining. | 5-30 minutes | 25 | 25 | 50 |
Show |
| Manual test procedures; trial and error. | Windows PC. | Visual Studio. | None, since I was the only one. | Under 10 seconds | 40 | 25 | 35 |
Show |
| Depends on what is being tested, currently I build it, flash it the target device and test functionality or try to break it. Otherwise I try to add a piece at a time, and test it as I go to see if it works with known input/outputs | I use several, AVR's, ARM, SNC, PICs | Atmel Studio, Notepad++, custom tools, SONiX36K compiler | N/A | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| TDD, ATDD. | Unknown at this time. Will depend on the client. | Depends on the language. Generally an IDE from Jetbrains and whatever build/dependency management tools are part of that language ecosystem. I.e. Bundler for Ruby, Gradle for Java. CMake for C++. | Pair programming. | Under 10 seconds | 60 | 40 | 0 |
Show |
| We practice TDD on all of our projects. We also strive to practice ATDD on our projects. | I don't have a target system. We build systems for clients with various languages and constraints | JetBrains Suite of tools | We use PRs for our code reviews and most of the time the comments are very minor | Under 10 seconds | 45 | 50 | 5 |
Show |
| Debug later style | STM32 | Visual Studio, Atollic TrueStudio (ST specific IDE), IAR previously | Dev team of 1 currently so N/A | 1-5 minutes | 45 | 40 | 15 |
Show |
| I try to cover more than 80% of my code with unit tests. Units are mostly classes, sets of classes, modules, libraries, up to the whole system. GUI test tools like Squish allow to test user interactions and system responses. I write the tests at the same time as the code: sometimes before the code, sometimes after the code. TDD is my goal, but I don't always achieve it. My TDD steps are sometimes too big. The big steps force me to backtrack and start over with smaller steps in a slightly different direction. When implementing the CAN communication for harvesters, I wrote a mock object for testing. The mock object can check that an expected sequence of CAN messages occur. It can even answer to requests. I get nervous, if I have to work on a code base without tests. Then, I start introducing tests, which is onerous in the beginning but pays off in the end. | Embedded systems with an HMI. The Systems run on ARM SoCs with Linux: mostly microprocessors, rarely microcontrollers. | QtCreator, Squish, Valgrind, Gdb, Docker, Yocto, Git, Github, Jira | Code reviews often take too much time. The fewer tests there are the longer code reviews take. Code reviews trigger discussions that should have taken place when starting the implementation of a story. | Under 10 seconds | 45 | 40 | 15 |
Show |
| unit testing and black box integration testing | Embedded system | Eclipse | Basic aspects like syntax, workflow are checked. After this logical aspects and unit test coverage is tested. | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| developing test scripts in dSPACE AutomationDesk | Microchip controller | C application, C++ for Google Test Framework and python for Automations. | Static Analysis | 31-60 seconds | 5 | 1 | 4 |
Show |
| By writing unit test scripts using Google Test Framework | R-Car E2 | Eclipse, GCC | We have code review checklist created based on "Code Complete" by Steve McConnell book and customized based on our learning | 2-4 hours | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| using GTEST framework | arm, x86_64, x86_32 | GCC, KPIT proprietary toolchain, Eclipse, cpplint, clang-format | is coding standards followed? is code scalable? is commented code present? is code optimized ? is proper breakdown to smaller reusable Classes/Function ? is it responsibility reflected in name ? is code readable and maintainable ? | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 30 | 40 |
Show |
| Manual testing | Embedded system for connected vehicles | Eclipse , Android studio | We do peer reviews of code from the other team member. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| Using Google gtest/gmock framework | Embedded Linux | Eclipse, gcc, gdb | Peer review/architect view | 31-60 seconds | 3 | 3 | 4 |
Show |
| Using google test framework | arm and X86 | Eclipse IDE (Photon version) | 1.Does Implementation have proper design.2.Does code follows SOLID principle.3.Class and function should have only one responsibility & it's name should represent it's responsibility.4.memory allocated on heap freed or not.5.Comments are added or not | 1-2 hours | 5 | 5 | 7 |
Show |
| We have developed a unit test framework to call our periodic and sporadic functions using that we perform our testing on the hardware itself. | Micro-controller | Eclipse | We have basic self-checklist to perform code review. After that, we perform peer review. | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| Unit tests, integration tests, regression test | Linux Ubuntu | vim, bazel | Github + reviewable PR process | 11-30 seconds | 60 | 10 | 30 |
Show |
| Unit tests, perception CI, marvel log tests, on-vehicle tests. | Zoox perception system, running on Linux. | VSCode, Bazel | Mainly try to understand each line of code. I do have difficulty in finding bugs in this process. | 31-60 seconds | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| gtest / CI -> bench test -> on-dyno test -> dynamic vehicle test | Embedded board, runs QNX on a microprocessor and an RTOS on a separate microcontroller. | Sublime 3, Bazel, clang-format, easy-clang-complete, socketcan, CANalyzer, TextPastry | Process-oriented and protected against human mistakes by CI and other pre-merge checks. 1 reviewer minimum, 2 preferred for non-trivial changes. Larger changes should be split up and merged into a feature branch instead. | 1-5 minutes | 50% | 10% | 40% |
Show |
| gtest | beefy x64 | vim, gdb, bazel, valgrind, asan, tsan | each file must be marked as reviewed by any reviewer. Typical questions are more about style than design and usually a lack of tests is considered to be OK. | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| With googletest. | Linux | VSCode Git | Reviews are done by team-members in my local group, or outside the group if there is a better expert for the subject. | 11-30 seconds | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| Unit test | Bazel | vim | short and to the point. | 31-60 seconds | 60 | 10 | 30 |
Show |
| 1. Unit tests for non-trivial methods, classes and functions (unfortunately, not everything has unit tests) 2. Simulation tests for testing the entire code end-to-end 3. Hardware-in-the-loop tests, depending on the nature of the change 4. On-vehicle tests for changes that end up on the vehicle | It is a custom developed heterogeneous compute architecture | bazel, git, vim | Every PR must go through code review, testing and possibly CCB approval before it can be merged. There's tooling to ensure each step is done. Most of the reviews I've had have been useful but sometimes it's hard to find the right people for a review. | Under 10 seconds | 60 | 15 | 25 |
Show |
| I write unit tests (after writing the code :( ) | Linux servers | Bazel, gdb, valgrind | There is not universally agreed "checklist", it's often hard to get consensus among reviewers about the "readable" coding style. | 1-5 minutes | 6 | 2 | 2 |
Show |
| googletest and python unit tests | C++ and python driving an autonomous vehicle. Many complex, tightly coupled and performance-sensitive systems. | gcc, clang, bazel, vim, VsCode | We review for implementation, test coverage, code style and comments. | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Catch2 at Neato, behave for python side projects | Ubuntu 18.04, x86_64 | Preferred Editor: Sublime Preferred IDE: Eclipse | I don't feel comfortable nit picking others about coding standards / styling so I focus on regression issues, checking the logic, and optimization. | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 50 | 30 |
Show |
| There is a small portion of the code with unit test using catch2. The rest of the code runs in the device and evaluated based on its performance. | Embedded device | git, stash, slack, jenkins, eclipse, vim | Peer review through Stash. Usually involve 1 or 2 other developers | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| catch2 | qnx OS, 32 bit | vim and cscope | we make people familiar with the code we're touching / introducing as reviewers on pull requests | 1-5 minutes | 4 | 2 | 4 |
Show |
| log files and printfs | QNX on arm cpu | gcc, xemacs | online using Stash | 1-5 minutes | 25 | 50 | 25 |
Show |
| Peer reviews, simulation, and hardware testing | Embedded Systems | Visual Studio, CLion | N/A | 11-30 seconds | 8 | 8 | 8 |
Show |
| Simulator, unit tests, compile the code The objective of our peer reviews is to find mistakes and ways that the code can be improved. Also, team members are supposed to make sure that the different pieces of the code are used and integrated correctly. We have a handful of unit tests (which are relatively recent), but we do not have much in the way of automated testing. | Embedded devices | Visual Studio, Vim, git (BitBucket), Jira | They are slow, but I do learn from them. | 5-30 minutes | 70 | 10 | 20 |
Show |
| catch | Linux embedded system | Visual Studio Code / Internet | Use github pull requests | 31-60 seconds | 75 | 5 | 20 |
Show |
| Self-built unit and integration tests, interactive feature tests | Linux, MacOS | Command line, Make, compiler | Mostly ineffective and are the largest delay in getting code deployed. Unit tests with coverage analysis are better. | Under 10 seconds | 5 | 3 | 2 |
Show |
| Testing different inputs to check different cases | Not sure | Command line/text editors | Not really existent | 11-30 seconds | 50 | 10 | 40 |
Show |
| Functional testing via external interfaces for larger code that crosses multiple modules. Utility executables that test specific functions and sequence of functions- Mainly success and fail cases. | Arm processor running QNX- a unix-like real time os, POSIX compliant. | Linux environment & vi. | Use Stash side-by-side diffs for individual review. Depending on the complexity of the code, there will be a group review and comment | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| functional test and module level test | SoC boards : mostly custom | eclipse, vim, gcc, gdb trace32 | manual | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| We usually test the firmware on the device, either using the debugger, oscilloscopes, DIOs or checking the final behavior of the device using manual tests. We are starting to deploy automated tests with Python + JLink, using SEGGER RTT to output traces and parsing the log on the host PC. | Cortex-M | JLink, Eclipse, GCC, Keil, IAR, Python | We do code reviews in Crucible, linked to Jira for every code change. They are usually very useful. | 1-5 minutes | 50 | 20 | 30 |
Show |
| I test it against hardware as we don't generally have the restriction of hardware timelines or expense. | STM32F4xx microcontrollers usually | IAR | We use crucible and are pretty useful. There are not too many people here to do reviews. | 1-5 minutes | 60 | 30 | 10 |
Show |
| Every build during development, my unit tests are run immediately on boot. | It is a Kinetis-powered system running FreeRTOS doing automotive communications with a wide variety of protocols. | Sublime Text, IAR Embedded Workbench, AutoIt, Visual Studio 2017, and more. | Currently no formal code review process where I work, but I have been heavily involved in the code review process at a previous company using Atlassian Crucible. | Under 10 seconds | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Some debug stepping confirmation and final testing in the target environment. | ARM Cortex M3/M4 mix | IAR, Ozone, gcc | Informal BitBucket reviews requiring two approvals from a potentially large audience. | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| VectorCAST for unit testing. Blackbox testing. White box testing. Independent verification testing. | My target system is typically ARM-Cortex-M cores right now for SIL3 certified gas detectors. | IAR Compilers, Bamboo build servers. VectorCAST unit test tools. SONARCube rules checkers. | Right now code reviews are performed as pull requests using the GIT flow. | 1-5 minutes | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| We are trying to add unit tests to our codebase using Google Mock. Also, we are using python to integration test our code built for a VM. Finally, we cross-compile that code and are starting to system test on the target hardware. | It is an imx6ull SOM which will be in a mobile device that allows for wireless communication between units (over bluetooth, LTE, etc). | Cmake Visual Code IDE git cppcheck Sonarqube | We do code reviews before each commit to our trunk. Sometimes it is independent where reviewers look at it without context. Other times it is in a conference room as a team where the author goes through and explains the changes. | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 40 | 40 |
Show |
| A combination of unit tests and functional tests run on target. We also have some dedicated test engineers who test specific hardware requirements that can't be covered by software tests alone. | Industrial sensors powered by Cortex M4 microcontrollers. | IAR, Visual Studio, GCC, Clang, CMake, Docker, GitLab | Didn't exist 2 years ago, now gradually adopting pull-request, peer-review workflow using GitLab. | 11-30 seconds | 60 | 30 | 10 |
Show |
| Unit testing with googletest | Primarily STM32 micros | IAR, Visual Studio, gitlab | Primarily take place during merge requests | 1-5 minutes | 25 | 25 | 50 |
Show |
| Functional testing, although I have written and run unit tests for past work projects | STM32 ARM, application written in C, sometimes FreeRTOS and sometimes bare metal, multi-microcontroller setup | IAR, CMake, J-Link or ST-LINK, sometimes Windows and sometimes Linux host system | Automatically created before pulling changes, diff views available, need 3 approvals from pool of peer reviewers (everybody) | 11-30 seconds | 10% | 30% | 60% |
Show |
| Mix of adhoc, TDD | Automotive | IAR, Gcc command line | Through pull requests in Atlassian tools | 2-4 hours | 80 | 10 | 10 |
Show |
| Ad hoc, functional test, on the bench with logic analyzers and scopes. | Cannot disclose. | Eclipse, Saleae Logic, Scope | Review with 1-3 persons | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| I perform manual/functional tests according to a specified test plan document. | MSP430 microcontroller | IAR embedded workbench, TI Code Composer, Visual Studio | Code reviews are done on an as needed basis with peers. | 31-60 seconds | 40 | 30 | 30 |
Show |
| I read a great book about TDD and embedded C by a certain James Grenning about six months ago. Before that, just on-hardware testing. | Right now, I have two targets: a Cortex M3 and a DSP CPU. The software I'm currently working on has to run on both. | GCC toolchain, chess compiler toolchain. | Two reviewers. | 31-60 seconds | 5 | 2 | 3 |
Show |
| Cpputest and Swift (a Cisco home-made LUA framework) | It's a range of Cisco proprietary devices having different platform. It has Linux running on them and Cisco IOS-XE. | Clang, Git, GitHub, Vim, Geany | Code reviews are done using GitHub | 4-8 hours | 50 | 40 | 10 |
Show |
| unit tests, integration tests, invariant tests, stress tests, manual tests, crash tests | n/a | clang, gcc, eclipse, gdb, valgrind, asan, | useful | 31-60 seconds | 10 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| unit tests, integration tests, pyats (python script configuring target with full image) | Wireless Controllers, Wireless AP | git, gcc, gbd, eclipse, emacs, internal tools | Long cycles, many reviewers, all comments to be addressed before commit. At least one person need to approve. | 5-30 minutes | 5% | 45% | 30% |
Show |
| At several levels. White box (CPPUTest, Swift, pytest), Black box (pyATS) Sometimes manual tests (black box) | Cisco platforms (Polaris - Wireless) | Mainly Eclipse, sometimes vi | Done for every patch. Need at least one approver. Currently done on (internal instance of) Github. I believe all code should be reviewed and approved before being committed. Otherwise, code quality will quickly degrade | 11-30 seconds | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.2 |
Show |
| Proprietary Cisco framework, LUA based. | Both host and actual Cisco device. | Static analysis checker, address sanitizer, etc. As IDE it depends: on build machine I usually use the good old VIM with some interesting plugins, while for Python on my computer I usually use Visual Studio Code. | Cisco Enterprise GitHub | 11-30 seconds | 3 | 5 | 2 |
Show |
| We have three levels of testing We currently use CPPUtest for unit tests in the Swiss team but this is neither a recognized usage nor is it enforced or encouraged by the organization. The first official tool is called SWIFT which is an in-house built LUA unit test framework that uses FFI bindings to C code. Please note that although we considered it a unit test framework and it can certainly be used to test a single function it is currently used more as an integration test framework. The two levels above are whitebox tests. The last level uses PyATS which is a black box test framework exercising our external interfaces such as CLI, SNMP, Netconf/YANG, RestConf, ... | We are building a wireless controller which basically needs to configure and coordinate the wireless access points in a given deployment. We have 4 form factors: > appliance > embeded on switch > embedded in the AP > virtual | git for source control github enterprise for commt workflow different editors (vim/emacs/...) to the liking of the developper opengrok for code indexing many custom made tools for different tasks | Currently, we have a code ownership model in GitHub which enforced at the pull request. This ensure those subject matter experts get involved. That being said review gets lengthy so the focus of the reviewer might not be optimal. | 5-30 minutes | 40 | 20 | 40 |
Show |
| Unit tests, manual testing, integration tests. | It's complex. | Source code search and cross reference engine.; vim as IDE. | They're github pull requests :) | 1-5 minutes | 20 | 50 | 30 |
Show |
| Unittests using internal test framework based on lua. Integration tests using internal test framework based on python. | networking device running on different architectures ARM, MIPS, x86 | clang, make, gdb, profilers, git, git-hub, | github PR posted to team and selected owners if touching common infra parts | 1-5 minutes | 30 | 65 | 5 |
Show |
| UT test with swift, IT test with python | Linux system running on different hardware platforms and processors. | actually vim, gcc and gdb. Git for repos. Many others in the past... | We use github, depending on the part of the code, some external reviewers mandatory approval is required. Committing is not possible if a series of automatic tests are not succeed. | 2-4 hours | 40 | 40 | 20 |
Show |
| Unit tests and end to end testing | c code with a lot of dependencies and a lot of C generated files. | make, gcc, clang, vagrant, ide, gdb, cscope, cflow | I usually look thoroughly at the code and try to find missed cases etc. | 30-60 minutes | 2 | 3 | 5 |
Show |
| Lua-based injection into the event loop for most apps, integration testing with expect-based programming for automation. Personal projects: various C++ unit test frameworks, integration testing. Not much TDD, TBH :( | A large set of applications based on the event loop model, all running on a Linux hardware. Apps communicate through shared memory. | At work: Emacs, Make, Clang, Static analysis | Many automated tests, lots of internal style things. | 2-4 hours | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| Run UT, automated IT. | Its big. | VIM | Good & in depth | 4-8 hours | 20 | 30 | 10 |
Show |
| Small unit tests written in Lua. | Linux | gcc/gdb/valgrind and an editor (Sublime Text 3) | Approval by at least one reviewer. | 5-30 minutes | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 |
Show |
| lua infra from my current company | Mostly x86 like systems | Unix editor and Unix tools | Code review help catching design issue / coding issues | 1-2 hours | 30 | 50 | 20 |
Show |
| Mostly manual tests - dedicated commands used for testing. We have a test department which then handles (black box) testing. | Cellular devices running our firmware. Most of them use some kind of RTOS, a few of them linux. | SourceInsight, JIRA, Perforce, Jenkins, GIT, Swarm | Code reviews are always done, mostly through Swarm, rarely face to face. | 5-30 minutes | 50 | 40 | 10 |
Show |
| Ctest | So very briefly, we have different HW models that have common stuff between them. Most of the times are small changes in the HW between versions and that provokes people to have one code for all versions full of #if defined(PLATFORM_MODEL1) etc. | VSCode, Perforce,cmake, ctest, ninja(compiler) | An incredible high number of the comments are opinions and not facts. All of code must be reviewed before submission. | 5-30 minutes | 20 | 30 | 50 |
Show |
| Unitesting, manual test on real HW, test automation on real HW | ARM | Text editor, sometime VisualStudio2010 express or other IDE for debugging, static analysis tools and unitesting. | We use SWARM perforce web base tool | 30-60 minutes | 30 | 20 | 50 |
Show |
| system testing | ARM, x86, etc.. | gcc, T32, git, perforce, jenkings, CI, | swarm, github/gitlab | 5-30 minutes | 70 | 10 | 20 |
Show |
| I send AT command to module and test functions that report expected response. | Embedded system with different OS like linux, threadx or other OS system. | SourceInsight, VisualStudio, Eclipse | I check if function does what is required and sometimes I test it by myself | 30-60 minutes | 40 | 30 | 20 |
Show |
| unit-testing with CppUtest, integration / system testing (manual and automatic) | ARM based controllers | ARM tools | Pairing review is used before any code can be committed | 5-30 minutes | 30 | 35 | 35 |
Show |
| JTAG, Logging, User Stress test: If it is something that user can trigger extenrnally I create a script test which stress my code from user interface. | Drivers for esystem embedded mainly (AMR technology, but not only). | Source Insight Editor heavely. ARM tool chaing for building and linking. gcc. | The main focus during review is optimize it and simplifying it for better future reading. | 30-60 minutes | 70 | 10 | 20 |
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