Training Feedback -- 100 entries

Course Rating Better prepared Recommend to Others Most useful Concepts
Presentation v Discussion Course improvements Exercise rating Exercise improvements Instructor comments Start tomorrow Challenges to applying
TDD for Embedded C/C++ Very Good Much better Yes Importance of real unit tests to keep software maintainable Good balance Good balance Very Good Some excercises where challenging, but thats also important to keep them interesting :) I need to get some more experience to apply the learned techniques intentionally rather than focus on actually doing TDD Show
TDD for Embedded C/C++ Good Moderately Yes SOLID principals Not enough exercises Good balance Class participation was very low. I think this was partially because it was virtual training, and partially because several in the course were new hires. I was signed up for this training and had no knowledge about what it was prior to the first class. This made it difficult to say what we were hoping to get out of the course, and also likely contributed to the low participation. Very Good Some more in-depth exercises around apply UTs to legacy code, and design patterns would have been helpful to solidify the concepts. I liked James, he had good stories about his experience. I could tell he was frustrated by the low level of participation. Also, I think more time was needed in order to go through all of the material, and we could have used more exercises. The environment is not test-driven, and there is not much emphasis on UTs (that I can tell so far being a new hire) Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Much better Yes testing strategies in embedded Too many exercises Too much discussion - more focus on concepts, testing theory, technical aspects and challenges Very Good not applicable nice preparation with commercial taste yes separate the hw dependent code as much as possible Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Much better Yes Learned, why TDD is beneficial and how it can be used to test Hardware, before Hardware becomes available. And how I should use TDD in practice. Good balance Too much discussion It would be useful to have short breaks during the workshop. It would also be great to have a bit more time on the technical exercises and maybe to spend less time on the end of first day discussion about likes and dislikes. Have the homeworks and what will be done in the workshop available a bit earlier, having the time difference and being at work before the workshop made it difficult to find time to prepare. Create a pdf only of the charts for implementation, switching between screens for sharing and looking at the town made it difficult to remember what had to be implemented. So a pdf, of the flow-chart, which could be printed out before the class could be useful. Good The excercises in the first day were very easy. The second day excercises were alrigth. The third day the preparation videos got me confused, why the tests contained the read and write functions and in the implementation they were written in the flash file. For the rest, once I got the concept it was easy to implement the rest. Excellent presenter, funny and enjoyable to follow. Not at work, but yes. Currently I am not working on C or C++ projects. Show
TDD for Embedded C/C++ Excellent Much better Yes I was partially aware of TDD before the course. The examples and seeing you doing TDD gave a good feeling on how it is done in practice. The small steps were even smaller than I expected, happy to have experienced that. The thing that "flashed" me was seeing you refactoring the LightController with "keep the system running" in mind. I've never seen (the art of) refactoring that way. So I learned that I have to learn and practice refactoring. Good balance Good balance The first two days there was almost no break. Well, you said "when you need a break during the exercise, do it", but that did not work good for me. I wanted to practice and kept going on. I would have preferred multiple short (scheduled) breaks, ~5 minutes here and there, to get a coffee and relax the thing between the ears ;) Excellent Exercises for me went very well for me. It seems to be very dependent on the partner. I had good luck on two days, exercising was fun und enlightning. Good personality, both feet on the ground. I appreciated your "normalness". I saw you as a very experienced expert, willing to share your knowledge (and not god talking to people - even if you are (TDD) god :). Since a few months my customer started with unit-testing. The team will for sure try to implement the new TDD approach. In our company it may take some more time. I'll prepare a summary talk about my experience in your training and hope to inspire at least one teammate. I'll immediately start with TDD in private. I have a pending project (lamp in kids dorm) that is similar to your LightController example. The lamp works most of the time, but not always and would need some debugging (that's why the project is pending, I fear to touch it). Now I decided to re-do the implementation, strictly following TDD. The key challenge will be to convince upper management that spending more time for the implementation phase will pay out later in the project. Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Much better Yes That i write bugs, ehm sorry, tests :-) Iterate you code with smalls steps and therefore set a focus. Not enough exercises Too much presentation Maybe do more and shorter excercises. Split the excercises in smaller portions and discuss them shortly. Then go on with the next part of the excercise. The last part of each day was a bit hard to listen to you and watch you do coding for such a long time. Alternating: Theory and examples. Very Good More focus on the TDD methodology and a bit less code engineering. We spent a lot of time during the excercises finding the right solution. Dont get me wrong, for a C developer the excercises were not difficult! Maybe think of providing more prepared samples or guidances. Maybe it was also a problem of not being aware of all your hints... We as a team think we would be ready. We have to challenge our toolchain (build times) and our SW process. But we think we could start soon. We have to provide unit test anyway (medical). Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Moderately Yes The TDD principles. Fail, Pass, and refactoring. Good balance Good balance The embedded part of the course was a bit vague. Important topics such as, for instance, interruptions and tests on the hardware should be discussed. Very Good The test list was always given. It would be interesting to make an exercise from scratch. The instructor was very pragmatic and well prepared. Well, I could start tomorrow to apply the principles, but with certain limitations ( long build time, legacy code and so on). The extra time needed (especially at the beginning when I do not have a lot of experience) and building time. Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Bring it on! Yes TDD guided by zombies; gather town tool Good balance Good balance I was prepared to spend full days in this, as if at a physical. But I lost motivation after "class dismissed", although in one instance my pair buddy and I agreed to pair in after class for a bit. Would have liked to mingle with other attendees after hours. In physical space we might have a mixer, dine together. What might be equivalent? Organizer arrange nachos & chips sent to homes of participants? Something after formal lectures, mixer, or encourage pair study "OK to hang around with your pair buddy, go deeper into exercise, I'll pop by in a couple hours" might helped me put in the full days I'd planned. Excellent don't retire yes. We're not green field but rust programmers applying strangler pattern to a body of legacy C++. Skills gap challenge. Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Much better Yes To first write failing tests of my code then enough code to pass and then refactor. Repeat cycle until done: faster than fixing hidden bugs that sneak during traditional coding. Good balance Good balance Maybe do the hands-on together with the whole group, to keep everyone at same level, and clarify any discrepancies between each team implementations. Excellent Provide additional explanation of error screens for clues on how to pinpoint sources of error. Very articulate and knowledgeable, with a great sense of humor. Forced into other higher priorities. Legacy code to maintain, limited resources, schedule pressures, responsibilities not falling directly on me. Show
TDD for Embedded C/C++ Very Good Much better Yes Mob programming, writing tests first, how to make them pass and refactoring the code by making sure that we are not breaking anything else. My favorite part was doing exercise. Good balance Good balance Little bit more hands on activities. This suggestion is for people like me as my attention span is not that great during the presentation. I pay great attention during hands on activities like mob programming. Excellent Like someone mentioned we need to take some breaks. People is west coast started at 7 in the morning where they didn't have anything as needs to take care of the kids or something else. Show
TDD for Embedded C Good Much better Yes - Schedule pressure initially increases the feature velocity, but then has the opposite effect through poor code quality and increased defects (slow down to go fast) - Bad code should be improved incrementally (one verifiable step per increment, it is easier to keep a system working than to fix it after you break it) - Unit Tests: Just using C with classes of C++ Good balance Good balance - I didn't quite understand the purpose of this live coding in the second part of the session. I saw the point in the first part to prepare us for the exercises but watching you have compilation errors and linker erros again and again in the second part I didn't understand. - I missed a schedule for the day Very Good In my opinion, the exercises were very well prepared and I do not know what can be improved. Good explanations, but sometimes digressed too far from the topic. Yes because there is no impact on our SW process - Making colleagues aware of the benefits of TDD - The current toolchain is quite slow. Fast feedback is needed to apply TDD efficiently Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Bring it on! Yes How design fits into the TDD process Good balance Too much discussion I would have removed the Legacy Code section. This is a separate course in itself. Then we could have had one more hour on another TDD specific topic for which there are plenty in your videos Very Good Split them into 30 minutes slots with a discussion in the Tiki Bar Level of knowledge is exceptional on the topic For European audiences you take to long to get to the point. For example when addressing the parking lot items sometimes we lost the plot. Good to bring in your considerable experience to explain an issue with an past concrete example but keep to the point and ensure the question has been answered. Monday for sure :-) We have some limitations with our dev environment which we need to work on. We are a medical device company so we must comply with strict methods of developing and testing SW. We will need to adapt our processes to allow the use of TDD as prescribed in your course. But we are prepared to do this to get the advantages Show
TDD for Embedded C/C++ Good Much better Yes I learned how powerful it is to implement and refactor software in small steps while having a good base of unit tests as a safety net. Good balance Good balance At least for me, the excurses to C++ were a bit too long. But i just realized the curse was C/C++ ;) Very Good For me everything was clear, but I already had experience with CppUTest and CppUMock. So I was able to focus on the important thing. For my colleague in one training, it was a bit hard to get started. Not sure how to improve, maybe you could instead of presenting the first 1-3 steps of exercise do it in the group together. Then it's a bit slower and the opportunity to ask questions is a bit better. Not in the current company project, but I will certainly use it right away in my private projects. The environment in my current project does not allow such an approach. Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Bring it on! Yes To restrain myself to only take small incremental steps. Good balance Good balance On the second day, the excercises were a bit much. We didn't make much progress and it would have been better if we could have gone through more of the exercise the day of in order to appreciate more the benefit of dependency injection. Good Maybe clearer hints? David has done a smashing job. He managed to convey the concepts in a clear and non boring fashion. Not right away, we just need to add/choose the test framework. We have a lot of legacy code. Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Much better Yes The mock is the most useful thing that i think allowing me to emulate the hardware interface without the hardware Good balance Good balance I think it is the best that it can turn out to be. Well done. Very Good If I can recommend, I would recommend to spend less time on circular buffer. I even would recommend to substitute the light scheduler with some more hardware emulation or interrupt emulation. I think you covered the topic very well. I liked the idea that requiring us to watch video for the concepts will be recovering. That helped to reinforce the concept again during the presentation. We already started on some projects, so it will continue. In regarding to the existing projects, i think it is a balance approach. I remembered one powerful statement during the training was that to find a way to implement TDD. Depending on the level of ease, some can be hard. This leads me to think differently on how to use TDD on existing projects without doing a lot of code surgery. The existing codes are too big and were not started that way. Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Much better Yes Programming in small steps. Then test. Good balance Good balance Excellent I will repeat the exercises again to understand everything. Then I still have to adapt the knowledge to the programming environment in which I program. The challenges are converting to a different development environment and convincing my colleagues how useful TDD is. Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Bring it on! Yes The test doubles module. Just being able to create a test double from a precompiled library and have the linker "sew in" the test double was pretty amazing. Good balance Good balance Might be interesting to make note of integration tests (a segue to another course perhaps?) It would be interesting to apply SOLID principles to embedded C design. Excellent I don't think they can, really. They are applicable to embedded C and are just the right size to fit into the training timeframe. Most importantly the exercises emphasize the focus on the TDD pattern. David Cozens taught the course very well. I had a lot of questions and he was able to answer them on the spot or from the parking lot at a later time. I can technically start tomorrow, but we are in the requirements phase for the project, so a little premature for testing just yet. Truth be told, I've been doing TDD for years and I still learned valuable techniques as did my new colleague. Our organization is very welcoming to TDD. I think the heritage of our business is to acquire products (and therefore code-bases) which do not have tests. I would find value in learning to test with legacy code bases. The other challenge may be in, as David put it, helping other developers convince themselves whether TDD is worthwhile or not through subsequent training which I will provide to our team. I have no idea why someone would not do TDD after they have been through this training. Show
TDD for Embedded C/C++ Very Good Much better Yes That we can apply TDD it to legacy code. Good balance Good balance I wish you spend more time talking on how to create/write the test list. I found it difficult to come up with a good tests. Good Good job on answering the questions and explaining. Little bit in hurry sometimes but maybe because time limits. I hope soon. To convince others that TDD is worth the time invested in learning and applying. Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Moderately Yes How TDD works Good balance Good balance Design the exercises so that they can be followed more easily Good Make instructions more clear Very helpful and described the concepts very clear Don't think so. It would be an organizational effort. Overhead time with tight project deadline Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Much better Yes writing one Test and let it fails and the fix it first, results in less written code/tests than writing a batch of tests and then fix each test. Good balance Good balance i was familar witch test-frameworks. But for one who does not have seen such frameworks it could be difficult to follow. Maybe for such attendees you should frist show the videos of the homework first and then let doing the exercise. Excellent exercises are good. But Mocking in CppUTest feels like pain ;) Maybe a Testframework for C for the Embedded TDD C-Course is better. Give Ceedling with Unity chance. It includes also the Fake Function Framework (i have not used it yet) and i find that mocking is a littel bit more better to implement. because i used it (a bit differently), i have to change only small things to start tdd in its correct way. legacy code has not often a terrible complex interface. If the interface has to much arguments for the functions they are "untestable". Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Bring it on! Yes Small programming errors are found quickly because of the short test cycle. Good balance Good balance The course is fine as it is. Very Good The exercises were close enough to real life situations to make me appreciate the value of TDD. You did a good job David! Very helpful. Yes, I can and I will :) Get everyone aboard. Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Bring it on! Yes Securing the future development and be confident of changes while moving forward. Good balance Good balance May be mixture of presentation and exercise. instead first presentation and then exercise. Excellent Good enough. Everything is well organized nothing to say. Yes. Because I got the core concept. I am not so good in environment setup. That may be a bit challenge. Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Much better Yes It is better and faster to write test code before writing production code. In the long run it will keep the code more maintainable and cleaner and best of all hopefully bug free. Good balance Good balance The course did a great job introducing TDD. Implementing the principles into the legacy code will take some time to get used to, to make the process of finding the right tests especially in small steps effective Very Good They were a good starting point for TDD David did a great job explaining how to apply TDD. He also gave a lot of recommendations on how to improve the code further. Thank you and James for taking the time! I will definetly start implementing TDD from now on and improve my skills using the techniques learned general opinion from some colleagus is that automated testings of code take to much time. Improving the software product without generating bugs in the long run will hopefully change their mindset and improve the overall quality of atleast my code. Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Bring it on! Yes I already have extensive experience in TDD, and this course still helped me refine and reflect on some of the things I do to gain better understanding. More specifically for C, how to do "interfaces"-like decoupling for C at linking level instead of actual interfaces, as is done in higher level languages. Also, how to leverage TDD to help with the hair-pulling problem of linker errors which you don't know how you caused exactly. Good balance Too much presentation Overall, I think you did a great job, especially with the excercices, which lead to unexpected autonomous conclusions. Since I was an educator myself (and perhaps will be again), I am obligated to point out that concepts like flip the classroom are incredibly important. It may be good to see if you can introduce more interactivity with playful ways of getting people to interact with the problems they have. Can you e.g. without requiring code use a 'game' of some sort to switch up the story that would otherwise be a long presentation? It may be worthwhile to see if to a small degree you can grab on to real-world examples in the same way as in Burkhard Stubert's workshop and bring that into a context to test with. It's very tricky to do this though, but very worthwhile if it can help break up what would otherwise be long lectures. (Anyone who's ever done comp-sci expects lectures though.. and this expectation also applies to courses such as these I guess, so it may not be good! ) Excellent I think the excercises already balance cognitive load and complexity very well. Still, it is vital to keep complexity to a very low level. Unfortunately us developers expect 'challenges' that intellectually challenge us.. this is in conflict with the requirement of introducing new concepts; people may be overburdened. By choosing the most relevant 'complex' examples that are widely understood by almost every participant, this should be achievable. The circularbuffer example does a pretty good job at this. It is worth exploring if 'simpler in terms of cognitive load' examples exist which can help increase the amount of focus participants can expend on applying TDD properly. Small improvements in the "behind the curtains" checks to make sure people employ TDD properly are possible. It would also be good to have clear instructions on how to use the cyber-dojo, to maximize the performance people have and minimize confusion. You look older in real life than in the profile pictures I saw :D.. But that is a good thing; getting older is far preferable to the only other alternative. You make good usage of your hands when explaining things, you use clear language and have a good cadence and speed. There were sometimes occasions where you were in a long story and I noticed that some of my colleagues were drifting off; this can be avoided by adding in tiny snippets of interaction, even if it's just a question. (The question should be very simple though, trivial even) the act of placing people on the spot even for a relatively simple thing, having them think along just slightly, can help keep them on board with a story where otherwise attention may falter. Virtually every educator I have worked with, including myself, sometimes simply just talks for too long and we should always think of how to keep people on board :) - Your didactic skills are good, but can be improved even further. No, tomorrow is a Saturday. Also, we already started in other places and made a start in the workshop already, which is comitted to GIT already. I will ask with the author of the branch to see when/if we should merge it to master and how to make sure that we get CI set up :) We'll need to keep on our toes and make a practical balance between the ideals of TDD and the practicality and pragmatism of developing with legacy code. While James correctly states that we should probably start scratching our head if we always make excuses for not making a test immediately.. it does raise the question: should we have rules? Do we need them? What if we end up being too lazy? Maybe we just need to give someone a TDD cap and ask them to keep an eye on things and reprimand those who sin against uncle Bob's laws? Also, as any developers knows, we tend to start to get cocky and try to take too big/too many steps at a time. We're going to end up writing tests that skip steps and end up tripping. Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Bring it on! Yes test Good balance Good balance test Excellent test test test test Show
TDD for Embedded C/C++ Excellent Moderately Yes You can see a better path for progress. You have defined milestones and it's easy to go back. TDD would help me to have more structure and identify more clearly and faster flaws on my code and logic. It still seems like more work and it could be, but I think it will be less noticeable the more I get used to it since I would be improving in other areas. Good balance Good balance I was happy in general and it is good to have the legacy code workshop after. Also, I enjoy that the videos were not really long, it's easier to watch them and prepare for the next day. Very Good The exercises were good and I am happy with the content. I think my only concern was time since TDD was a new concept to me, it took me a long time to advance with the exercises. The course instructor offered clear concepts with personal experience that allowed a better grasp of TDD. The instructor for the legacy code workshop was very good offering guidance with the set-up and how to approach the tests. Both instructors were very encouraging and easy to approach to discuss about TDD. It would be a gradual introduction of TDD to my routine. It will take me some time to adapt to it. I would think that time. I feel with legacy code may be more difficult, writing the tests and setting them up correctly take some time. But with new projects, it could be implemented from the beginning. Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Much better Yes As this was my first experience to TDD, the most useful thing for me was being introduced to the mindset of how to work efficiently with TDD. Good balance Good balance Just a minor complaint. The cyberdojo is somewhat annoying to use, when you're used to autocompletion and such. However, it might serve it's purpose be slowing the developer down and not develop by old habits. Excellent Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Good Moderately Yes Too many exercises Too much discussion Fair Show
TDD for Embedded C/C++ Excellent Bring it on! Yes Exploding fakes, work in small increments, be patient with the development. Good balance Good balance Provide more case studies. This will help the attendees correlate with their problems. Very Good Maybe the exercises could be spread out a bit more to allow sink in the concepts while they are presented. Nice job! :) Yes! Because I had read your book before and was already interested in TDD. I went to the course with excitement and it did not disappointed. I hope to be able to overcome the challenge that comes with the eagerness of going fast and ignore the small steps. None. The company totally embrace new methodologies that can translate into better value for the money :) Show
TDD for Embedded C/C++ Very Good Much better Yes I had never worked with TDD before, and had heard very little about it before the course. My impression before the course was that TDD was only used to prevent bugs, but I found quickly out that there is more to it than that, such as refactoring and writing a better structured code when writing new code. I really liked having a step by step method while writing more secure code. Good balance Good balance Very Good I had not heard about mock, spy and fakes before, so personally I had a hard time to fully understand their use case and how to set them up. These were already set up, maybe it could be an idea to include setting up the mock/fake/spy as a part of the exercise? Not fully, due to the "How can the exercises be improved" part, i.e. I'm not so confident on how to use mock/spy/fakes. Show
TDD for Embedded C Good Much better Yes Good balance Good balance Very Good Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Much better Yes A lot of (obvious) things I knew up front, like the need for abstractions, that global variables are bad and that dependencies needs to be kept under control and at a minimum. The TDD course shows why this is not just academic best practices but needed practices to get clean and testable code. Good balance Good balance Maybe a bit more of a debrief after the workshop. We end up with a lot of faked stuff and a couple of very basic tests. It's early days for us yet, but no clear path yet how this should evolve into better interfaces and cleaner code (eventually). I guess it's a lot of hard work before we get there, but as I see it getting these tests is not a goal in it self, just a means to enable refactoring. Showing and clarifying that path could be good. Excellent All good Thumbs up! Yes, but I think maybe we should re-evaluate the choice of toolchain. I think Google test could be a good choice even in an embedded system in C if you start from scratch, but the workshop showed a few difficult parts in the C vs C++ category that we could avoid with a pure C framework. And I would think we could get quicker compilation, which would be a big deal with TDD... The problem is that there is really no obvious choice for pure C framework... Getting people to take the time. Getting project managers to approve of people taking the time. Getting some ground rules and the framework settled (always takes more time than expected). Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Much better Yes A new way of programming and testing. Programming in small groups might be more effective since exchange of ideas might lead to a better product. Good balance Too much presentation More exercises. Very Good Simple more of them. Explanation of what each file is supposed to do (ringbuffer exercise) Very experienced and competent instructor. I would not able to start tomorrow. Still some things needs be solved inside the company on how and where the new information needs to be implemented. Old entangled code which should be changed during the process of using TDD. Many hardware dependencies which needs to be sorted out. Show
TDD for Embedded C/C++ Very Good Much better Yes Good balance Good balance Very Good Show
TDD for Embedded C Good Much better Yes Small step Good balance Good balance Use more specific examples from the customers code base throughout the presentations, instead of circular buffer and light schedular. Fair time Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Much better Yes Process for achieving full test coverage while also reducing workload Good balance Good balance By having more of it. Excellent The last exercise with the flash-programming had several steps that were plain repetition of the previous steps. You add a test for checking an error-bit in the status-reply. Then you do the same thing, but with a different error-bit. Then you do the exact same thing again, but with yet another error-bit. I think it would have been enough with a single error-bit check. Or perhaps some variation on the specified behavior of the flash-programming-module when it detects the different types of errors. Thumbs up No. Because its weekend and I intend to drink beer and watch the football instead of working. Some are already able to deliver "perfect" code. If your code is "flawless", then of course you dont need to spend a lot of time on testing it. There are no know bugs, so you dont need to spend a lot of time on debugging it. You see the firefighters? cant be related to your code since that code is "flawless". ignore them and focus on your next task instead. So if you are already spending most of your time on writing code and almost none of their time on doing tests and debugging. Then TDD would just seem like additional workload. Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Moderately Yes Considerations around different kind of tests doubles. Which ones are available, and how to select an appropriate one. Good balance Good balance The course is already very good. The only thing I could think of would be if some of the best parts of each teams exercises could be quickly highlighted at the end of the session, I am thinking that this could help boost confidence. I also feel that other testing techniques were not even mentioned. For instance fuzzing, Domain testing might be more appropriate for some embedded application like motor control. It would be good to include some information about other tools, and when they would be appliccable. Very Good When "getting ahead of oneselves" in the exercise it was not always clear what the "problem" was. Comes across very as knowlegable and hands on. The material is presented in a with an eye on practical application. Presentation is clear, and the answers to questions are always instructional, even if the question is off topic :-) I will choose the right tasks to try it out. For instance I have 2 tasks on my back burner : Implement HW independent I2C driver for a sensor , and hook up some GPIO pinst to interrupt actions on a microcontroller. The former will be very well suited to TDD, but the latter not so much. I expect that to just work once I have done the correct device configuration. It will be fairly obvious if there is a defect, and time will better be spent on reporting a diagnostic error message if it should fail. We have much legacy code, and limited green field projects where we can gain the most experience from exercising TDD. Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Bring it on! Yes test Good balance Good balance Excellent Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Much better Yes How TDD can be used to aid development Good balance Good balance Escpecially for our group: More focus on how to use legacy code fr TDD Good In principle yes but currently we are in an approval process which has o be finished first. Use CPPUTest framework for my existing code. Show
TDD for C Very Good Much better Yes - Good balance Good balance - Very Good - - - - Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Moderately Yes integrate TDD into existing projects Good balance Good balance better matching time zone :-) Very Good really good exercises, showing the concepts very good. I can. Do I will ? hardware related, proprietary interfaces. Most of my code are already adaptions, like JNI. Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Much better Yes The strategy to check code functionality with TDD in common and also not to be afraid for using TDD with "old" legacy code. Good balance Good balance From my point of view a bit more time for discussions, even if the balance between presentation and discussions was good. Excellent A bit more time for the exercises We can and our leader wants that we start as soon as possible! Me too! The decision which existing components will be the first/next TDD usage candidates. For sure, new components will be created with TDD from start. Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Moderately Yes starting to develop new code should be done under supervisory of tdd. Legacy code to rework need huge amount of time and should be use carefully to not violate delivery schedules. Good balance Good balance The exercises should be cleared up. As a pupil it was not everytime clear what is to do and how far the exercise should be done. Very Good Tool is nice. But as developer I had often the intention to search through the code to finde declaration of function name what is not possibe or at least not known by me how. Good understandable also for not native english speaker. Thumb up. I'll try. I need to get used to and be sure about the setup. The preparation phase forlegacy code. The thinking construct to avoid to do more than one step with one jump. Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Moderately Yes - The iterative working cycle (write a test, watch it not to build, ...) - The systematic approach to get legacy software on board Good balance Good balance - Infrastructure stability could be improved - there is some duplication in the videos; avoiding them may allow to spent more time in the homework to continue the exercises or on the bonus material - in the videos with the live recordings of other training sessions the voice of the trainer sometimes is not to understand (e.g. if standing at the whiteboard) and the voices of the trainees are not to understand in most cases Very Good They are totally OK for me Yes to get the time by the project managers (line manager is already supporting ;-) Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Moderately Yes Good balance Good balance Excellent Knowledgeable, get the point across very well No - researching how to use for PLCs PLCs Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Much better Yes how test code and product code grow from step to step Good balance Good balance it's very good Excellent very good very experience yes. we have a project that we can use it how to generate test code from requirement Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Very Good Moderately Yes The usefulness of pair programming Good balance Good balance The Covid era is challenging but an in person training would be better Very Good Very knowledgable and helpful Institutional inertia will prevent quick adoption Leadership will to make these techniques required. Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Excellent Much better Yes A different perspective and methodology for doing code development Good balance Good balance Very Good Depending on timing a look at how the exercise can be solved No - we would have to work with a variety of people who were not part of the class to get this integrated into our development process. Training - we use off shore developers as well as in house. Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Much better Yes Applying the walking skeleton approach to TDD. Good balance Good balance Very Good My company is already using TDD. None at this time. Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Moderately Yes The biggest takeaway from the course was a preview into the methodology behind test driven development. The examples provided a simple way to get familiar with the mindset and the process to develop well tested code. Good balance Too much discussion I think there was a lot to cover in the 3 day sessions particularly for those who are not able to dedicate sufficient time to reading/digesting all of the optional material available. I feel like the first day was a great introduction and really conveyed the change in mindset that is required for TDD. The second day increased the complexity of what you can do with TDD and helped provide a preview into all of the tools available. The third day seemed to have become more about going from C to C++ which is useful but I don't think there was enough time to cover it well. I was also hoping to learn more about working with legacy and existing code. The course touched on this but very lightly and certainly difficult to cover in depth in a 3 day course. I think overall the course was very informative and exposed the need to dig deeper in certain areas of interest. It also highlighted the need for a more personalized course Very Good I found the exercises to be adequate for the training content. We struggled a little bit at the beginning to find a good way for people to collaborate. I think screen sharing with one person driving ended up working well. The complexity of the exercises was good and the clues in comments of what needed to be done was fairly easy to follow. The only thing I would change would be to make sure there is sufficient time to work on the exercises during the class and not leave it all as homework I think James was a great instructor. I think that if I were developing something from scratch, I could definitely start using TDD. However, the current challenge that we have is how to change the culture of the current team, train them appropriately and formulate a strategy to make the transition to TDD. It is particularly challenging that we deal with a significant level of legacy code We need to properly train the work force. We need to have a strategy to transition to TDD knowing that we have a large legacy code base that has not been developed under this paradigm. Justifying to the company the price to pay to adopt TDD. I feel like TDD makes initial development slower which is also something that the company needs to get used to Show
TDD for C++ Excellent Bring it on! Yes Writing the ABSOLUTE LEAST amount of code to pass the test and NO MORE. This was probably the biggest watershed moment for me. Good balance Good balance Excellent Gave us space to try to do the exercises on our own but was also proactive at keeping an eye open for when we were completely stuck. Good balance. Yes -- I'm in a tech lead role and can plan, require, and mentor other team members to incorporate TDD into the work flow. Also starting a small technology update where we have current code that needs to be updated and have an opportunity to implement tests. Sometimes customers want to get into the weeds of how you do your work. If you need to provide justification, a challenge is explaining the need for "all the extra code". If you can mandate or convince developers to do unit tests, getting them to keeping tests small and narrowly focused; actually getting them to write the test first. Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Bring it on! Yes That it is possible to use all this knowledge in C legacy code with less chance of breaking it. Good balance Good balance Concepts like the TDD small steps and mocks can be overwhelming for those who never experienced it. For example, the person I paired had a hard time with this concepts. We paired two times. The first day was hard, the second was much better. 1) in the beginning, propose a really simple pair exercise that would not use any new technique other than the language itself. Just to know each other, get used to pair and the tools. 2) maybe a few words on pairing. many don't know how to do and will be just a "voyeur" 3) you used an expression for describing mocks something like: It will describe what functions your system must call. - this would be good to hear right in first contact with mocks. Excellent 1) at the end of the course, let the student download his dojo exercises (git versioned) so he can compare the steps with your demos and remember how to slice the tasks better. much of the struggle I saw was knowing how much to implement in each step. 2) the circular buffer had an structure that lead to quick understanding: you wrote the first tests letting us making it pass. I think the other exercises might have a couple like this. James can speak directly to your soul. He points out solutions to deep problems you probably didn't even know you had. He only uses jargon when necessary. James expresses himself in simple and polite language. You can feel that he has experienced the pain we feel today when having to maintain untested code and and managed to overcome these challenges. Very nice and friendly person! I had to take three days, and a lot of work was waiting for me -- guess why? bad, LEGACY CODE makes the customers sad. and they will complain! I was able to retake the work and will start tomorrow! To have the discipline of taking time to use it, and above all, to apply the discipline with someone that do not take time to learn. the person might even like what you say, but as soon as you move away, they start to write poor code again. I think will have to write good clean modules to inspire them, and only after this, try to bring them to the TDD side. Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Moderately Yes The basic process to following in creating tests: create the test, make it fail first, then write just enough code to make it pass. Good balance Good balance There were several changes to the underlying infrastructure for this course that caused issues on the first day. Test the infrastructure changes better before deploying them. Very Good Good understanding of the concepts he was teaching. Lots of legacy code and our projects are part of larger efforts within the company. This will take some time, but it is worth it. Lots of legacy code and our projects are part of larger efforts within the company. Show
TDD for Embedded C Good Much better Yes Fake it till you make it!! Don't jump in to coding everything that you know you will need eventually at once. Go slow and methodically. Test Doubles. Good balance Too much discussion The course I took was listed as 4 hrs course daily for 4 hrs. All 3 days we went over by at least one hour. Plus we had substantial homework afterwards. I think this course requires at least 5 FULL days. Corporate employees obviously have other responsibilities and if they block only 4 hours then its hard to go over an hour and also do the Homework. Most corporate classes I took, the expectation was that all the work will be done in the class. Because I only blocked 4 hrs I did not get a chance to complete exercises and get deep in to the context. Leaving up the videos and exercises for a couple of weeks is a great idea for those of us who want to catch up Excellent Have enough time to actually complete them. Very good No. As I said I need some more time to catch up to the concepts and get a deeper understanding so that I can apply them in every day work. Getting others on board Show
TDD for Embedded C Good Much better Yes Fake it till you make it!! Don't jump in to coding everything that you know you will need eventually at once. Go slow and methodically. Test Doubles. Good balance Too much discussion The course I took was listed as 4 hrs course daily for 4 hrs. All 3 days we went over by at least one hour. Plus we had substantial homework afterwards. I think this course requires at least 5 FULL days. Corporate employees obviously have other responsibilities and if they block only 4 hours then its hard to go over an hour and also do the Homework. Most corporate classes I took, the expectation was that all the work will be done in the class. Because I only blocked 4 hrs I did not get a chance to complete exercises and get deep in to the context. Leaving up the videos and exercises for a couple of weeks is a great idea for those of us who want to catch up Excellent Have enough time to actually complete them. Very good No. As I said I need some more time to catch up to the concepts and get a deeper understanding so that I can apply them in every day work. Getting others on board Show
TDD for Embedded C Good Much better Yes The most useful concepts for TDD Off target unit testing for new code, new tests was to develop a test (to fail initially), then develop the prod. code to get it to pass, incrementally and together, so that you can build off of each subsequent effort, refactoring as needed as you go. Good balance Good balance I believe in Day 2 videos it helped to show where in the test effort TDD units testing resides. Perhaps show that up front in Day 1, to give folks an initial overview of TDD unit testing, to other testing that happens independently and later on. (integration, more pa/qa product testing) Good Knowledgeable, likeable, and a decent mix of varied experience with trying to keep the current thread or concept being delivered and reinforced via example, and run time training of those live. Perhaps. Trying to decide if cpputest is the right fit for both off target, on target and if so, wether to use Visual Studio, Cygwin (windows), or Linux environments as the test platforms. the above first. need to look and see as well if cpputest on target is something we should entertain or not. possible size constraints, but additionally maybe the bang for the buck switches more to integration tasks on target anyways. Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Much better Yes How the tests can help document the firmware design. Good balance Good balance 1. Our site in Lexington, KY (dormakaba Inc.) was never able to use the parking lot. 2. It was difficult at times to hear what the presenter (James G.) was saying. Perhaps a better microphone? 3. When presenting code (sharing "James screen") it wasn't always easy to see the code being presented. Perhaps don't display James while presenting the text? Excellent The exercises are excellent. Very good introduction to TDD. 1. Well thought out delivery of the material. 2. Very good presentation. I would not hesitate to take other courses from this instructor. I'm not sure yet. I 'm happy the course material is available for download. I believe the biggest hurdle will be getting it building. We have already identified the current shipping product firmware code base we want to test TDD in. Management believes it will add time to the development process. Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Moderately Yes THe principle to test all the code written. Not only a few paths. And the way to implement tests for testing the written code. Good balance Good balance I would have like more information on how to test the code on target. Very Good Very good speaker, I liked the way he presented the information. Yes on some new code. I need to understand how to implement that in embedded code on traget. Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Very Good Much better Yes Writing tests before implementing all the code. Really makes you think what the code should really do. Good balance Good balance Very Good I think the course duration needs to be a little longer - 5 day? There wasn't enough time to complete the exercises. Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Excellent Much better Yes probably one of the most useful was attempting to keep tests off-target as much as possible Good balance Too much discussion i would say that i very much enjoyed the class and appreciated the hands on exercises. however, i do think that keeping to the scheduled time each day would be more beneficial to those of us who can barely afford the extra time out of working to take the class. instead of going over, i would be okay with less discussion and/or going over people's responses and questions - maybe answer questions in an email later Very Good though it is great that the exercises are simple to help teach the concepts, something a bit more real world might help more - more examples that deal with hardware since this class is specific to embedded engineers - would also appreciate being able to work with the C++ examples in class the whole time James does a great job explaining the concepts and breaking things down in an easy to understand manner. i do still need to have more practice with setting up the test environment and then figuring out how to connect it with my actual code our code is very tightly coupled to the hardware, there is probably more that can be tested w/out hardware than i think there is, but there are still a lot of hardware dependencies - such as controlling a camera or a motor or servo, etc Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Very Good Much better Yes Since I already read about TDD before it was not really new to me, but it was nice to hear the concepts from someone who is "living" this. This is always something different than only reading about the topic. So I would say, the most useful thing here for me was having real live feedback :) Good balance Good balance I understand that this was a basic course for getting familiar with TDD. But I would also like to see more about how we can have support from different tools. Like how does my UnitTest Framework affect the TDD idea etc. Maybe it doesn't, but I think with the many tools out there it could help to have some points for the decision. Good James did an excellent job in my opinion and he knows what he is talking about. Yes! Not so much "new code" but maintenance of legacy code. So it takes some time to refactor the underlying code in my opinion to benefit from the changes for TDD. Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Much better Yes Good balance Good balance Very Good Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Much better Yes TDD doesn't mean writing *all* the tests first. Write tests in very small steps, run tests at each step even if failure expected to ensure on right track. Good balance Good balance I feel like the large timezone difference was an issue there, creating a disconnect between the theory and time to continue exercices which had to be on next day morning (and not easy to stay focus at during theory late in our time of day). Introduction to exercices could be made even better (see next answer). However may be not much you can actually improve but constraints of participants. Good It was something hard to figure what to do at beginning of exercices, which caused some lost time in you having to re-explain or demonstrate. I feel the difficulty was not mostly related to "how" to do things (i.e. not about applying TDD), but on "what" to do (i.e. what is the goal, first step of exercise). However once on track, I think exercices allowed to try out the TDD approach/tools/framework quite nicely, the cyber-dojo helped well. Keep it up as it is! Much appreciated positiveness, humour and direct approach! We can feel the great skills you have in this domain and you convey them very well. Yes, while we are not too bad on the "how much is tested" side (unit testing in continuous integration, coverage, etc. in place), we learned much on improving our working process to go much more in a TDD approach instead of adding tests after. We also learn much on how to improve the tests themselves and how they are written. It will be a challenge to be able to temporarily "pause" development of new features, improving testing of existing, and then go back to adding features with TDD approach. Will have to convince those waiting on new features (on which we are already late) that this delay is worth it in the long run. Show
TDD for Embedded C Good Moderately Yes Keep tests small, use Descriptive And Meaningful Phrases (DAMP) Good balance Good balance Having less people in the classroom. Checking participants previous experience of TDD and general SW development xp, then grouping them. Maybe having sub-classes? Advanced participant gets quickly bored in a beginner course, and vice versa. It's also the course subscriber's responsibility to check those points. Very Good Having auto-completion; It definitely avoids typos and let you write code twice faster He has a very good experience and many examples and solutions to provide Yes, even today! There's no reason to wait for improvements None Show
TDD for Embedded C Good Much better Yes The TDD cycle Good balance Good balance I should have blocked out the whole 3 days so that I could focus on the exercises. I had work commitments in the mornings (course in the afternoon), so I didn't engage with the exercises enough. So advice to block out the full 3 days could be good. Because we already have unit testing and CI in place, with our version of spys and fakes (via FFF), perhaps a private course would have been better. Still, I appreciate seeing the different ways of doing things. Very Good I enjoyed them and I think they are at the right level. I think getting something to run locally, even if its in our own time after the course, would be valuable. There seems to be a jump between Cyber Dojo and my machine (although we have tests via Unity and FFF, so its OK) I appreciated your experience and knowledge. Thanks! Yes. Lets see how it goes, but that is the intention. I think I have some design pattern issues, and I'm not sure how to solve them. The code works (well) but its in really big FSMs. I need to investigate this more. Maybe it should be in an RTOS of some kind... Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Much better Yes The test driven methodology was well taught and demonstrated in exercises. I have learned how TDD is a continuous cycle of testing, making the test fail, and implementing just enough code to make ti pass the code again. TDD is an incremental approach, where at every step we add more to the code while satisfying a list of tests. Good balance Good balance It could be longer ! There are so many things that could still be discussed on this topic Excellent The exercises were impressively well designed. I can and I will ! There are already a few things I can start applying for a new project that I had lying around. None. Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Much better Yes I learned the value of taking small steps, "cheating" with the most basic implementation, and in always making it fail first. When I read your book these techniques were something that I wrote off as being the "ideal case" that nobody would ever do in practice, but after using it in the exercises it finally clicked for me just how useful these techniques are. This is not an example of perfectionism, but it is the heart of the whole process. I have a tendency to over-analyze and over-design things from the start, so I usually have a basic draft implementation before I write tests. This has always forced me to climb out of a fairly large hole when I begin to add unit tests, because I have a lot of code to cover after the fact. I thought that skipping the small steps would save me time, but it is clear now that the exact opposite is true. Good balance Good balance I noticed some duplication between concepts you were covering during the session and concepts that you covered in the recommended homework videos. Since we have such a limited time in the class it would be better to not go over the same material twice (probably easier said than done with so much material). I did watch the "extra credit" videos, so maybe this is to be expected. It might also make sense to use some kind of "discussed" tag for the parking lot issues so we don't cover the same concerns more than once. I would definitely use Gather Town in the future. It worked very well even using the basic setup, so I imagine it could be even better with some customization. I wonder if pair programming during the exercises might have helped avoid some of the "I don't know what to do" scenarios. It might also help to have participants do some gather town training as part of the pre-course preparation homework. Excellent Pairing up (using Gather Town) would maybe be helpful so we can bounce ideas off of each other or help each other understand things better. A shortcut key list for the dojo would be helpful. It would be nice to be able to expand the coding dojo window a little bit more. Supporting one split window would help a lot so we can view the code and the test files at the same time. It may be more complexity than it is worth, though, especially to avoid confusion. It would also be helpful to have code completion support in the coding dojo. I noticed that I spent a good chunk of time jumping between files to get function/enum names, and many test cycles were just me fixing typos. A good auto-complete would make it easier to keep focused on learning and experiencing the TDD process instead of switching between files to get the right type/function name. As a Vim user I was sometimes distracted by these minor environment weaknesses, but I know you can't please everyone. James was a great instructor. It is obvious that he knows what he is talking about and that he's done this before, and that he has seen most of the complaints/questions countless times. I was impressed by the breadth and depth of his knowledge on the different testing frameworks and languages. He not only knows his stuff, but more importantly he also knows how to teach it. Yes, I plan on starting to familiarize myself with the CPPUtest framework with the goal of running through your "legacy code" process. That was the most significant challenge when I first tried to apply TDD to my work, and I finally feel equipped to handle the challenge. That helper tool you demoed today was awesome. The process and your tool look to be priceless (as someone who has banged his head against the toolchain while trying (and failing) to tackle this problem before). I think this course has helped fill in most of the little gaps in my knowledge/understanding of TDD, which is exactly what I was hoping would happen when I signed up. It will be most challenging to take the time necessary to get our legacy code in the testing framework. Adopting TDD for greenfield projects or library development will be much easier. It will also be challenging (as always) to convince coworkers of the value in unit testing (let alone TDD). I feel much more equipped to "sell" the process than I was before the course, though. I imagine this will require me to do all of the heavy lifting of getting our code in tests, so that it is easier for others to just add tests without the large initial barrier of setting up the toolchain. I had this problem before when trying to get people to adopt Ceedling (it depends on Ruby, uses a special YAML file for build configuration, and does some magical code generation that can be confusing to set up). One advantage I see in CPPUtest is that it relies only on C or C++ code, which my colleagues stand a better chance of understanding without additional studying. Show
TDD for Embedded C Very Good Much better Yes Do and fix one thing at the time. Not enough exercises Too much discussion Sometimes, the discussions are too long, the discussion can be closed as soon as the answer has been given. 2)The tests names rarely have good names. Is there a coding standard for test naming ? Very Good For the 3rd day, it was difficult for me to understand what is the purpose of each file (even knowing the use of mocks). So, no idea where to write what. A simple header in each file to explain the purpose of each file can be useful. Easy to understand even for french speaking people. James helps the course to be nice and interresting. No, need some more training and exercices to be efficient. But I will use it soon. nothing seems to prevent applying TDD. That's great. Only mock requires to add tools in the setup. Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Excellent Much better Yes in small steps to something bigger with more stability and error handling Good balance Good balance there is already a good level of discussion and exercises Good add more non-hardware relevant examples like UI - QT development not all of the listeners have liquid coding skills maybe it helps to ask more individuals no I can't start direct I only learned the theoretical part and now I have to consolidate it with the practical The TDD has laid a solid foundation for this Nobody is well versed in a subject after 3 days to convert what you have learned in the embedded system to UI concepts in an efficient way Show
TDD for C++ Very Good Much better Yes TDD concept conceive a program from a testing perspective refactor legacy code Good balance Good balance Very Good If the questions are asked in an optimized way, it can quickly help us to understand them Very interesting, logical and very conscientious in answering participants' questions a little bit hard, I need to learn more about the qt unit testing environment A slight clash with the current design concept in qt Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Good Moderately Yes Clear structured process for development. Good balance Good balance more examples Good - Good - - Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Very Good Much better Yes How to resolve dependencies. If you just need to test a small part of the code. Good balance Good balance Very Good Nice to have would be able to open multiple tabs in cyber-dojo. It would make it easier to have CPP and header files by side to side. (I think it's more cyber-dojo feature request) I would definitively try. The code has many dependencies. Show
TDD for C++ Excellent Much better Yes Do things step by step, but small steps. Smaller than expected. How concretely write tests before implementation. I have the theory but I never known how really apply this. Good balance Good balance Sometimes it could be fast. The day 2/3 was the hardest to follow. Good The exercises of the days 2/3 should be more step by step with demo after 2/3 step to see if everyone has well understood. Like we did it on day 3. ON days 1 and 3 the exercises was very good. Impressive knowledge. The presentation was very good and the online tool to write code was very interesting. On my personal works or works where I can decide, yes, and I will. On Rational project I not sure. It not depends only on my wishes. Also our code is very legacy. Get new habits Splits everything learns the software design patterns compatible with tests Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Good Bring it on! Yes Must useful thing I lerned is for following rules of TDD, I need to write code in simpliest way. Then proceed by small steps to write test and improve/grow code. Good balance Good balance Maybe course and example can be mixed. For example, the first exercise can be inserted inside. It obviously means that time to doing exercise should be reduced but at least, poeple can interact more with instructor and they are not blocked too long. Very Good It could be an improvement to have more clues for finishing tests after the training. So we can have a full corrected example. He is patient, very understandable. I can start tomorrow with a simple class. What could be a problem is to test a big existing class, because writting simple test can be difficult to think. The refactoring to allow mock and fake classes could be a real challenge. Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Excellent Much better Yes Keeping things working while doing changes. Making one small change at a time. Good balance Good balance The website ( could be more structured, I sometimes didn't know the correct order in which I should process information. Excellent I had a tiny c++ editor field on a huge widescreen display. James provided calm guidance especially in the leagacy code workshop. I was always under the impression that he knew what was going on and was not worried about any problems. I already did Each new legacy module has to be put into a test harness first before starting. Show
TDD for C++ Very Good Much better Yes Making small steps does help! How to get legacy code into a test harness in a structured way. Good balance Good balance -- Very Good The exercises are very good and the online platform is super useful. Very broad range of experience, comfortable presentation style and speed (for a non-native speaking audience), good answers to the asked questions Yes, I already started test driving a new class. For testing the legacy code, the tremendous amount of dependent classes. Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Excellent Much better Yes I heard about TDD before the workshop. But I could not imagine how to apply my knowledge in my daily work. Your exercises (both training and legacy code) helped a lot. Good balance Good balance The attendees must be aware that there is a lot of homework to do. 1 hour per day is not sufficient. The free day between 2nd and 3rd training day helped me to do my preparation. Excellent Your support during the exercises was very helpful, thank you. But it is hard to focus on the exercises when there is a discussion in the main room. Please use the breakout rooms for discussions. Mary Sue joined our training as German Co-Trainer. It must be very boring for her ;-) There were only a few vocabularies that needed to be translated for some attendees. I think it would have been sufficient if we had translated the most important phrases to our colleagues. First we have to decide in our organization how to use our knowledge. And there is still so much legacy code... It is not the question if we want to use TDD in our organization or not. We have to define a common understanding how to use it. Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Very Good Much better Yes - Separating of test classes and methods - incremental approach Good balance Good balance provide some cheat sheets or summeries to download and to remember Very Good There could be some additional class diagrams or illustration. The dojo web solution works really good. would be possible the new feature vs. quality balance must kept in mind Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Very Good Bring it on! Yes There is no shortcut to success. Development without testing is faster, but it just a matter where you spend the time. With TDD in testing, without in painful debugging. And the tests will aid you in further changes as well. Good balance Good balance It's a matter of time. I think you did the best you could within these 3 days of training. Very Good I think most problems I had were not based on the quality of the exercises, but on my ability to adept the tdd way of thinking. I liked that he addressed the problems of each individual person so that they did not get left behind. Should be, yes. I think I am capable of doing tdd right now, and the additional workshop helped alot. But I think we all have to find away do adapt the concept to our everyday work. I think it's the same for everyone: time vs. ideal execution / implementation Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Very Good Much better Yes The feeling for TDD (the exercises are really, really good!) Good balance Good balance Taking notes on the slides is a bit difficult since you are in front of the line number using zoom. Therefore, it is not so easy to find the right slide (since you adapt the order of presenting the slides to the questions in the parking lot). Maybe it is possible to move the slide number e.g. in the bottom left corner? That would be great. Excellent Since I don't program close to the hardware, it was difficult for me to do the bit logic in the flash driver exercise. Maybe one short introductory slide or some notes in the hint section would be helpful. Easy to understand and always very friendly. James was the first one who introduced mocks in a way which I can understand. Thanks a lot James! I think it is still challenging to transfer the learned stuff to our real project, but now I have an idea where to start. The legacy code training was really cool. Too many dependencies and code which is not test-friendly. It would be easier to start with a simpler example. Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Excellent Much better Yes how to use fakes for testing and that it could be useful to modify the design for a good testing and fast development. Good balance Good balance The script could be a bit more structured (not just bare slindes but a summerized article about the contents). It is not very intuitive to find your way around the homepage (I had to use bookmarks). Excellent Sometimes it was not easy to listen when there was a discussion going on in parallel because I was so focused on the exercise. It could be easier to have discussion breaks every 30 min with good and bad examples. It was really fun to do the exercises. the examples are well chosen and the instructions as comments in the code easy to understand. I will try. I do not have very much programming experience, so it will take me a while to completely understand the ideas. We have a lot of existing dependencies and very much "hard-to-read"-code where it is not trivial to define testcases. Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Good More afraid than ever Yes to think in another way; it's strange, but (hopefully) useful Too many exercises Good balance Good I'll need more time to recapitulate the new concept; hope, the WS will help Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Good Moderately Yes The TDD workflow. Not enough exercises Too much presentation Good Maybe instead of 3 different exercies, 2 or one that are extended from day to day. This would reduce the hurdle to get into new code every day. Also the solution code of day 1 can be used as day 2's starting point, so a trainee would see the intended solution een if he didn't have the time to watch videos. A lot of dependencies that will take a lot of time to mock (etc.) for testing. Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Very Good Much better Yes Apart from the concept of TDD, the topic was completely new to me. Now I have a good overview of why and how. In addition, lots of practical information on how to start using TDD methods in daily work Good balance Good balance Very Good James is a very knowledgeable trainer with huge experience. Well-prepared daily routine with preparation, course with new topics, follow-up work I don't think so, but it doesn't depend on TDD courses. It is a larger project and first a uniform infrastructure, rules, tooling and directory structure must be defined. Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Excellent Bring it on! Yes How extreme TDD can be done, esp. the step by step way of thinking is amazing to me. Good balance Good balance The language border (German) was not so easy to handle. You did all your best with translator. Excellent Yes, I can. I started downloading and doing the exercises beside the training on my local machine. The management and legacy code. The management needs fast results. The legacy is a hard burden. Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Excellent Bring it on! Yes The importance of writing testable code. Good balance Good balance 1. Request more participation from the audience by asking more questions. 2. Explain test doubles in more details. I still don't know the difference between a stub and a fake. 3. Explain exploding fakes technique in more details (and what it achieves). Add explanation video or link as homework before the workshop. Excellent 1. It was very hard to focus on the exercise implementation with a parallel discussion. Maybe ask attendees to post a message on the chat when they need help, and break out the room to a separate call to speak to the ateendee alone? 2. Post comments/observations about the exercise resolution directly to the developer on the attendee webpage. And maybe only highlight the most meaningful to the team before the course starts. 2. Publish complete exercise solutions on the website (source code on top of video) 3. Make exercise instructions clearer. Embed them or add a link in the cyber dojo space. Or post full textual instructions in test class source code as comments. I recall not knowing what to test in the mock example. 4. Sort the exercise files by alphabet on Cyber Dojo. If a source code file should not be modified by the attendee, then set a lock (or a comment)? Very good! I'm on it :) Management puts a LOT of pressure on feature development. It was embedded into our developers, they struggle switching to this new TDD mode... Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Excellent Bring it on! Yes I want to say that I learned a brand new and efficient way to developp, and that my "naive way" of thinking developpement was not so bad... Good balance Good balance Very Good I think I would be able to start tomorrow (at least on a new project). Breaking the dependencies maybe Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Excellent Bring it on! Yes I want to say that I learned a brand new and efficient way to developp, and that my "naive way" of thinking developpement was not so bad... Good balance Good balance Very Good I think I would be able to start tomorrow (at least on a new project). Breaking the dependencies maybe Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Very Good Moderately Yes Complete new strategy of how to develop code and a new point of view. Good balance Good balance Sometimes the presentation or demo with the source code of the exercises was a bit too confusing or hard to follow because of too much jumping around in the source code. But maybe it was just because the timing of the course was not so good planned which is not the fault of the course but of the time scheduling itself. The fact that we had meetings in the morning and normal work already half a day and then there a lack of concentration in the evening. Very Good I cannot start tomorrow since my main work is no longer so much C++. Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Excellent Much better Yes Good balance Good balance Good I was a bit confused in the beginning on how to get started. At first I did not understand the "simulated discussion" in the comments and the marker for the tests. Maybe instead of simulating a collaboration it could just be in the form of "do this task, now do that task". Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Very Good Much better Yes For my part, I really learned to have a strategy in order to set up unit tests, a real approach, also to be able to understand well how to interact with a refactoring of a code. thank you very much James Good balance Good balance For someone who is not native to the language, sometimes it was just a little too fast. The other details were more about our company, not having time to prepare and do homework. Very Good the exercises were interesting, I just lack of practice, suddenly I had a little trouble The instuctor was perfect and interesting. I will be able to start trying to apply it hoping I can really make it sucessfull I think the difficulty is the size of our code (5 years of development) and a big lack of testing. It won't be easy Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Excellent Bring it on! Yes What TDD is really about and why going slow is faster. Good balance Good balance Make sure attendees know to keep the training days completely free well beforehand. Maybe if because of timezone differences the attendees have the time before the trainings, give some more preparational material beforehand. Excellent For some parts of the code, we can start yesterday. For others, we still need to restructure the folders and cmake scripts (which is already planned), get to an agreement on where to place shared fakes and discuss some architectural issues that introduce a lot of singletons that would otherwise introduce bad hacks into the code if we tried to test them. Lack of testing knowledge - I think your training will get us going. Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Fair More afraid than ever Only if improved How test stubs and mocks work. Too many exercises Too much discussion I didn't had enough time to do all homework exercises, which meant that I couldn't quite follow the material the next day. It seems necessary to me to extend the duration of the training to 5 days so that the homework can be dealt with directly in the training. Fair It is good to be able to ask questions at any time if someone have a problem in the task, but a discussion in the chat should be avoided, as it is very difficult for the others to concentrate on the task then. No, because through this training I have the feeling even more that I lack the necessary knowledge to set up suitable tests. Many dependencies Long code Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Good Moderately Yes Since I had only experience with gtest I have learned to work with cpputest. Good balance Good balance I'm sorry, I have no idea. Very Good The exercises have already a very good state. I have enjoyed your presentation very much, thank you. I think yes. I've used TDD already in the past. Show
TDD for C++ Very Good Moderately Yes changing how my brain approches a problem dividing a problem into small steps (it's a huge change !) coding tests can be interesting and fun and does not take that much time (in an environment that enables tests to be done) Good balance Good balance it's a bit difficult to attend the full course AND practice homeworks while keeping half a day of workload. Maybe tell companies that they need to free attendees for the whole day, so they can focus on subjects Very Good maybe with a concrete case where 3 classes have to be tested independantly, but also together ? One difficulty is to work on the exercise while the instructor talks with other attendees. It could be interesting to have a special zoom room acting as an "instructor desk" where people could queue and get their help/answer from instructor each after another. That way, people don't get distracted. And if the instructor wants to say something for everyone he can just go back to the main room and tell his thing. James was a great instructor, I personally understood him well, and he was able to rollback to unanswered questions or misunderstandings. I appreciated the exercises provided (though it was a bit too low level/hardware related) Hopefully we can use it in our refactoring process. I would say I can start based on some example you have provided. main challenge is the time given by our managers for that. They need to understand the whole test subject has been put aside for many years, and if we now want to make things reusable, we have to spend time on it now and can't reach our objectives without them. Technically, I think this can be applied on our product and it will me even more useful to people dedicated to providing new features. Show
TDD for Embedded C++ Very Good Much better Yes Good balance Too much presentation Fair Show
TDD for Embedded C Good Moderately Yes Good balance Good balance Good Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Bring it on! Yes I really enjoyed every moment of James TDD remote learning and think it can help developers at any skill level. There were so many great lessons packed into the workshop, plus a variety of bonus and video material that is a must watch afterward. You can see how much time and passion James puts into the topic of TDD and is so eager to help his customers understand it. Good balance Good balance More attendies :) Excellent More exercises :) The hands-on programming exercises immediately promoted deeper understanding and learning. The direct and immediate feedback in the exercises was an invaluable help. I am already in the process of adopting TDD immediately after completing the course. I spent a day setting up my development environment so that I can compile and run tests with the click of a button, just like we did in Dojo. James' book has unfortunately moved to the back of my shelf in the last few years, but now it's back on my desk and will accompany me in my daily work in the near future. Inspire colleagues to write unit tests as well to have more weight in convincing management. Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Bring it on! Yes I learned through experience the discipline required to write tests first and avoid introducing untested changes, but also the code quality and confidence that TDD brings. Good balance Good balance Excellent Perhaps add a few more stopping points during the exercises to quickly demo what "good" looks like so no one gets stuck in implementation details. James makes a compelling case for TDD and ably guides attendees through discovery. I'm ready to start TDD *today* because I'm convinced it works and have the resources to get started. Complex legacy code that makes introducing tests difficult. Show
TDD for Embedded C Excellent Much better Yes Becoming aware of Refactoring in a useful sense. TDD can help me in a huge way. It also gave me a good mindset for appraoching legacy and safety challeneges. Good balance Good balance Maybe add an overview of flow for TDD. A context diagram of the process and toolsets available. A virgin approach overview and then a legacy approach overview. Very Good Exercises: Maybe simplify a few of the requirements. Some were a bit vague, needed a bit more detail. Excellent presentations and extremely knowedgeable. Yes. As soon as we start the next sprint we will begin working on TDD with refactoring. Time and resource availability, but we do have room to work this in. Show