I am trying to auto-generate Unit Tests for my C code using API sanity autotest.
But, the problem is that it is somewhat complex to use, and some tutorials / howto / other resources on how to use it would be really helpful.
Have you had any luck with API sanity autotest?
Do you think there's a better tool that can be used to auto-generate unit tests for C code?
It is a better tool (among free solutions for Unix) to fully automatically generate smoke tests if your library contains more than hundred functions. The unique feature is an ability to automatically generate reasonable input arguments for each function.
The most popular use case of this framework is a quick search for memory problems (segfaults) in the library. Historically, this framework was used to create LSB certification test suites for too big libraries like Qt3 and Qt4 that cannot be created manually in reasonable time.
Use the following command to generate, build and execute tests:
api-sanity-checker -l name -d descriptor.xml -gen -build -run
XML descriptor is a simple XML file that specifies version number, paths to headers and shared objects:
<version>
0.3.4
</version>
<headers>
/usr/local/libssh/0.3.4/include/
</headers>
<libs>
/usr/local/libssh/0.3.4/lib/
</libs>
You can improve generated tests using specialized types for input parameters.
See example of generated tests for freetype2 2.4.8.
It's a recipe for disaster in the first place. If you auto-generate unit tests, you're going to get a bunch of tests that don't mean a lot. If you have a library that is not covered in automated tests then, by definition, that library is legacy code. Consider following the conventional wisdom for legacy code...
For each change:
Pin behavior with tests
Refactor to the open-closed principle (harder to do with C but not impossible)
Drive changes for new code with tests
Also consider picking up a copy of Working Effectively with Legacy Code.
EDIT:
As a result of our discussion, it has become clear that you only want to enforce some basic standards, such has how null pointer values are handled, with your generated tests. I would argue that you don't need generated tests. Instead you need a tool that inspects a library and exercises its functions dynamically, ensuring that it meets some coding standards you have defined. I'd recommend that you write this tool, yourself, so that it can take advantage of your knowledge of the rules you want enforced and the libraries that are being tested.
I am looking at approaches to Unit Test embedded systems code written in C.
At the same time, I am also looking for a good UT framework that I can use. The framework should have a reasonably small number of dependencies.
Any great Open-source products that have good UTs?
EDIT:
Folks, thanks for the answers --I really appreciate them, but this does not directly answer my question:
Do you know of any Open-source code that uses C Unit Tests? I am looking to see how it's done, so that I can learn something from the code...
Modularize your code in such a way that there is a thin layer in the bottom which knows about the details of the underlying hardware. That layer can then be mocked on a normal PC. That way you can use normal unit test libraries for desktop development to test all code except that thin bottom layer.
My experience on developing embedded software for Linux is using C++ and not plain C. We used cppunit for unit tests.
Edit: there is a list of project using Check as unit test framework on the check project page. Some links are outdated, but you can browse the source of the unit test of pigment and SCEW ; one has to download the source for others.
minunit has no dependencies at all and can be used as a base to build your own framework.
As far as an approach is concerned, I start from the lowest level functions (the leaves). Very often, when I'm testing the higher level function they invoke the lower level functions. This is not a problem as the lower functions have already been tested.
I also modularize the code as "object", or table of objects. Stub functions allow testing in isolation of the hardware or of other components.
I get rid of the static with a define that remove them, or I include the source file containing the functions to be tested into the unit tests source file.
#if defined(UNIT_TESTING)
#define STATIC
#else
#define STATIC static
#endif
No rocket science here but this does the trick.
One last thing, test the behavior, not the implementation so that the unit tests won't break when the implementation changes.
Background:
I am developing a largish project using at Atmel AVR atmega2560. This project contains a lot of hardware based functions (7 SPI devices, 2 I2C, 2 RS485 MODBUS ports, lots of Analogue and Digital I/O). I have developed "drivers" for all of these devices which provide the main application loop with an interface to access the required data.
Question:
The project I am developing will eventually have to meet SIL standards.
I would like to be able to test the code and provide a good level of code coverage. However I am unable to find any information to get me started on how such a testing framework should be set up.
The idea is that I can have a suite of automated tests which will allow future bug fixes and feature additions to be tested to see if they break the code. The thing is I don't understand how the code can be tested on chip.
Do I require hardware to monitor the I/O on the device and emulate externally connected devices? Any pointers that could be provided would be highly appreciated.
--Steve
This is a very good question - a common concern for embedded developers. Unfortunately, most embedded developers aren't as concerned as you are and only test the code on real hardware. But as another answer pointed out, this can basically test just the nominal functionality of the code and not the corner/error cases.
There is no single and simple solution to this problem. Some guidelines and techniques exist, however, to do a relatively good job.
First, separate your code into layers. One layer should be "hardware agnostic" - i.e. function calls. Do not ask the user to write into HW registers directly. The other (lower) layer deals with the HW. This layer can be "mocked" in order to test the higher level. The lower level can not be really tested without the HW, but it's not going to change often and needs deep HW integration, so it's not an issue.
A "test harness" will be all your high-level HW agnostic code with a "fake" lower level specifically for testing. This can simulate the HW devices for correct and incorrect functionality and thus allow you to run automated tests on the PC.
Never run unit tests on or against the real hardware. Always mock your I/O interfaces. Otherwise, you can't simulate error conditions and, more importantly, you can't rely on the test to succeed.
So what you need is to split your app into various pieces that you can test independently. Simulator (or mock) all hardware that you need for those tests and run them on your development PC.
That should cover most of your code and leaves you with the drivers. Try to make as much of the driver code as possible work without the hardware. For the rest, you'll have to figure a way to make the code run on the hardware. This usually means you must create a test bed with external devices which respond to signals, etc. Since this is brittle (as in "your tests can't make this work automatically"), you must run these tests manually after preparing the hardware.
Vectorcast is a commercial tool to run unit tests on the hardware with code coverage.
Do you have a JTAG connector? You may be able to use JTAG to simulate error conditions on the chip.
I like to separate the tasks. For instance, when I made a circular buffer for my Atmel AVR I wrote it all in Code::Blocks and compiled it with the regular GCC compiler instead of the AVR GCC compiler, then I create a unit test for it. I used a special header file to provide the proper data types that I wanted to work with (uint8_t for example). I found errors with the unit tests, fixed them, then took the fixed code over to AVR Studio and integrated it. After that I used wrote support functions and ISRs to fit the buffer into useful code (ie, pop one byte off the buffer, push it into the UART data output register, append a string constant to the buffer for a printf function, etc). Then I used the AVR simulator to make sure that my ISRs and functions were being called and that the right data showed up in registers. After that I programmed it onto the chip and it worked perfectly.
I greatly prefer the debugging capabilities of Code::Blocks compared to AVR Studio so I use the above approach whenever I can. When I can't I'm usually dealing with hardware only. For instance I have a timer that automatically produces a square wave. The best I could do was see that the pin bit was being twiddled in the simulator. After that I just had to hook a scope up and make sure.
I like to use a multi-level approach when debugging problems. For instance with the clock the first layer is 'Put a probe on the clock pin and see if there's a signal there'. If not, probe out the pin on the uC and look for the signal. Then, I coded a debug interface in one of my UARTs where I can look at specific register values and make sure they are what they're supposed to be. So if it doesn't work the next step is 'call up the register value and ensure it's correct.'
Try to think ahead four steps or so whenever you're planning your debugging. There should be +5V here, but what if there isn't? Write into the debug interface a way to toggle the pin and see if that changes it. What if that doesn't work? Do something else, etc etc etc. You get to a point where you run into 'I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THIS DANG THING DOESN'T WORK!!!!' but hopefully you'll figure out the reason beforehand.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 1 year ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
I worked on an embedded system this summer written in straight C. It was an existing project that the company I work for had taken over. I have become quite accustomed to writing unit tests in Java using JUnit but was at a loss as to the best way to write unit tests for existing code (which needed refactoring) as well as new code added to the system.
Are there any projects out there that make unit testing plain C code as easy as unit testing Java code with JUnit? Any insight that would apply specifically to embedded development (cross-compiling to arm-linux platform) would be greatly appreciated.
One unit testing framework in C is Check; a list of unit testing frameworks in C can be found here and is reproduced below. Depending on how many standard library functions your runtime has, you may or not be able to use one of those.
AceUnit
AceUnit (Advanced C and Embedded Unit) bills itself as a comfortable C code unit test framework. It tries to mimick JUnit 4.x and includes reflection-like capabilities. AceUnit can be used in resource constraint environments, e.g. embedded software development, and importantly it runs fine in environments where you cannot include a single standard header file and cannot invoke a single standard C function from the ANSI / ISO C libraries. It also has a Windows port. It does not use forks to trap signals, although the authors have expressed interest in adding such a feature. See the AceUnit homepage.
GNU Autounit
Much along the same lines as Check, including forking to run unit tests in a separate address space (in fact, the original author of Check borrowed the idea from GNU Autounit). GNU Autounit uses GLib extensively, which means that linking and such need special options, but this may not be a big problem to you, especially if you are already using GTK or GLib. See the GNU Autounit homepage.
cUnit
Also uses GLib, but does not fork to protect the address space of unit tests.
CUnit
Standard C, with plans for a Win32 GUI implementation. Does not currently fork or otherwise protect the address space of unit tests. In early development. See the CUnit homepage.
CuTest
A simple framework with just one .c and one .h file that you drop into your source tree. See the CuTest homepage.
CppUnit
The premier unit testing framework for C++; you can also use it to test C code. It is stable, actively developed, and has a GUI interface. The primary reasons not to use CppUnit for C are first that it is quite big, and second you have to write your tests in C++, which means you need a C++ compiler. If these don’t sound like concerns, it is definitely worth considering, along with other C++ unit testing frameworks. See the CppUnit homepage.
embUnit
embUnit (Embedded Unit) is another unit test framework for embedded systems. This one appears to be superseded by AceUnit. Embedded Unit homepage.
MinUnit
A minimal set of macros and that’s it! The point is to show how easy it is to unit test your code. See the MinUnit homepage.
CUnit for Mr. Ando
A CUnit implementation that is fairly new, and apparently still in early development. See the CUnit for Mr. Ando homepage.
This list was last updated in March 2008.
More frameworks:
CMocka
CMocka is a test framework for C with support for mock objects. It's easy to use and setup.
See the CMocka homepage.
Criterion
Criterion is a cross-platform C unit testing framework supporting automatic test registration, parameterized tests, theories, and that can output to multiple formats, including TAP and JUnit XML. Each test is run in its own process, so signals and crashes can be reported or tested if needed.
See the Criterion homepage for more information.
HWUT
HWUT is a general Unit Test tool with great support for C. It can help to create Makefiles, generate massive test cases coded in minimal 'iteration tables', walk along state machines, generate C-stubs and more. The general approach is pretty unique: Verdicts are based on 'good stdout/bad stdout'. The comparison function, though, is flexible. Thus, any type of script may be used for checking. It may be applied to any language that can produce standard output.
See the HWUT homepage.
CGreen
A modern, portable, cross-language unit testing and mocking framework for C and C++. It offers an optional BDD notation, a mocking library, the ability to run it in a single process (to make debugging easier). A test runner which discover automatically the test functions is available. But you can create your own programmatically.
All those features (and more) are explained in the CGreen manual.
Wikipedia gives a detailed list of C unit testing frameworks under List of unit testing frameworks: C
Personally I like the Google Test framework.
The real difficulty in testing C code is breaking the dependencies on external modules so you can isolate code in units. This can be especially problematic when you are trying to get tests around legacy code. In this case I often find myself using the linker to use stubs functions in tests.
This is what people are referring to when they talk about "seams". In C your only option really is to use the pre-processor or the linker to mock out your dependencies.
A typical test suite in one of my C projects might look like this:
#include "myimplementationfile.c"
#include <gtest/gtest.h>
// Mock out external dependency on mylogger.o
void Logger_log(...){}
TEST(FactorialTest, Zero) {
EXPECT_EQ(1, Factorial(0));
}
Note that you are actually including the C file and not the header file. This gives the advantage of access to all the static data members. Here I mock out my logger (which might be in logger.o and give an empty implementation. This means that the test file compiles and links independently from the rest of the code base and executes in isolation.
As for cross-compiling the code, for this to work you need good facilities on the target. I have done this with googletest cross compiled to Linux on a PowerPC architecture. This makes sense because there you have a full shell and os to gather your results. For less rich environments (which I classify as anything without a full OS) you should just build and run on the host. You should do this anyway so you can run the tests automatically as part of the build.
I find testing C++ code is generally much easier due to the fact that OO code is in general much less coupled than procedural (of course this depends a lot on coding style). Also in C++ you can use tricks like dependency injection and method overriding to get seams into code that is otherwise encapsulated.
Michael Feathers has an excellent book about testing legacy code. In one chapter he covers techniques for dealing with non-OO code which I highly recommend.
Edit: I've written a blog post about unit testing procedural code, with source available on GitHub.
Edit: There is a new book coming out from the Pragmatic Programmers that specifically addresses unit testing C code which I highly recommend.
Minunit is an incredibly simple unit testing framework.
I'm using it to unit test c microcontroller code for avr.
I say almost the same as ratkok but if you have a embedded twist to the unit tests then...
Unity - Highly recommended framework for unit testing C code.
#include <unity.h>
void test_true_should_be_true(void)
{
TEST_ASSERT_TRUE(true);
}
int main(void)
{
UNITY_BEGIN();
RUN_TEST(test_true_should_be_true);
return UNITY_END();
}
The examples in the book that is mentioned in this thread TDD for embedded C are written using Unity (and CppUTest).
I'm currently using the CuTest unit test framework:
http://cutest.sourceforge.net/
It's ideal for embedded systems as it's very lightweight and simple. I had no problems getting it to work on the target platform as well as on the desktop. In addition to writing the unit tests, all that's required is:
a header file included wherever
you're calling the CuTest routines
a single additional 'C' file to be
compiled/linked into the image
some simple code added to to main to
set up and call the unit tests - I
just have this in a special main()
function that gets compiled if
UNITTEST is defined during the
build.
The system needs to support a heap and some stdio functionality (which not all embedded systems have). But the code is simple enough that you could probably work in alternatives to those requirements if your platform doesn't have them.
With some judicious use of extern "C"{} blocks it also supports testing C++ just fine.
You also might want to take a look at libtap, a C testing framework which outputs the Test Anything Protocol (TAP) and thus integrates well with a variety of tools coming out for this technology. It's mostly used in the dynamic language world, but it's easy to use and becoming very popular.
An example:
#include <tap.h>
int main () {
plan(5);
ok(3 == 3);
is("fnord", "eek", "two different strings not that way?");
ok(3 <= 8732, "%d <= %d", 3, 8732);
like("fnord", "f(yes|no)r*[a-f]$");
cmp_ok(3, ">=", 10);
done_testing();
}
There is an elegant unit testing framework for C with support for mock objects called cmocka. It only requires the standard C library, works on a range of computing platforms (including embedded) and with different compilers.
It also has support for different message output formats like Subunit, Test Anything Protocol and jUnit XML reports.
cmocka has been created to also work on embedded platforms and also has Windows support.
A simple test looks like this:
#include <stdarg.h>
#include <stddef.h>
#include <setjmp.h>
#include <cmocka.h>
/* A test case that does nothing and succeeds. */
static void null_test_success(void **state) {
(void) state; /* unused */
}
int main(void) {
const struct CMUnitTest tests[] = {
cmocka_unit_test(null_test_success),
};
return cmocka_run_group_tests(tests, NULL, NULL);
}
The API is fully documented and several examples are part of the source code.
To get started with cmocka you should read the article on LWN.net: Unit testing with mock objects in C
cmocka 1.0 has been released February 2015.
I didn't get far testing a legacy C application before I started looking for a way to mock functions. I needed mocks badly to isolate the C file I want to test from others. I gave cmock a try and I think I will adopt it.
Cmock scans header files and generates mock functions based on prototypes it finds. Mocks will allow you to test a C file in perfect isolation. All you will have to do is to link your test file with mocks instead of your real object files.
Another advantage of cmock is that it will validate parameters passed to mocked functions, and it will let you specify what return value the mocks should provide. This is very useful to test different flows of execution in your functions.
Tests consist of the typical testA(), testB() functions in which you build expectations, call functions to test and check asserts.
The last step is to generate a runner for your tests with unity. Cmock is tied to the unity test framework. Unity is as easy to learn as any other unit test framework.
Well worth a try and quite easy to grasp:
http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/cmock/wiki
Update 1
Another framework I am investigating is Cmockery.
http://code.google.com/p/cmockery/
It is a pure C framework supporting unit testing and mocking. It has no dependency on ruby (contrary to Cmock) and it has very little dependency on external libs.
It requires a bit more manual work to setup mocks because it does no code generation. That does not represent a lot of work for an existing project since prototypes won't change much: once you have your mocks, you won't need to change them for a while (this is my case). Extra typing provides complete control of mocks. If there is something you don't like, you simply change your mock.
No need of a special test runner. You only need need to create an array of tests and pass it to a run_tests function. A bit more manual work here too but I definitely like the idea of a self-contained autonomous framework.
Plus it contains some nifty C tricks I didn't know.
Overall Cmockery needs a bit more understanding of mocks to get started. Examples should help you overcome this. It looks like it can do the job with simpler mechanics.
We wrote CHEAT (hosted on GitHub) for easy usability and portability.
It has no dependencies and requires no installation or configuration.
Only a header file and a test case is needed.
#include <cheat.h>
CHEAT_TEST(mathematics_still_work,
cheat_assert(2 + 2 == 4);
cheat_assert_not(2 + 2 == 5);
)
Tests compile into an executable that takes care of running the tests and reporting their outcomes.
$ gcc -I . tests.c
$ ./a.out
..
---
2 successful of 2 run
SUCCESS
It has pretty colors too.
As a C newbie, I found the slides called Test driven development in C very helpful. Basically, it uses the standard assert() together with && to deliver a message, without any external dependencies. If someone is used to a full stack testing framework, this probably won't do :)
There is CUnit
And Embedded Unit is unit testing framework for Embedded C System. Its design was copied from JUnit and CUnit and more, and then adapted somewhat for Embedded C System. Embedded Unit does not require std C libs. All objects are allocated to const area.
And Tessy automates the unit testing of embedded software.
Michael Feather's book "Working Effectively with Legacy Code" presents a lot of techniques specific to unit testing during C development.
There are techniques related to dependency injection that are specific to C which I haven't seen anywhere else.
I don't use a framework, I just use autotools "check" target support. Implement a "main" and use assert(s).
My test dir Makefile.am(s) look like:
check_PROGRAMS = test_oe_amqp
test_oe_amqp_SOURCES = test_oe_amqp.c
test_oe_amqp_LDADD = -L$(top_builddir)/components/common -loecommon
test_oe_amqp_CFLAGS = -I$(top_srcdir)/components/common -static
TESTS = test_oe_amqp
CppUTest - Highly recommended framework for unit testing C code.
The examples in the book that is mentioned in this thread TDD for embedded C are written using CppUTest.
I use CxxTest for an embedded c/c++ environment (primarily C++).
I prefer CxxTest because it has a perl/python script to build the test runner. After a small slope to get it setup (smaller still since you don't have to write the test runner), it's pretty easy to use (includes samples and useful documentation). The most work was setting up the 'hardware' the code accesses so I could unit/module test effectively. After that it's easy to add new unit test cases.
As mentioned previously it is a C/C++ unit test framework. So you will need a C++ compiler.
CxxTest User Guide
CxxTest Wiki
other than my obvious bias
http://code.google.com/p/seatest/
is a nice simple way to unit test C code. mimics xUnit
After reading Minunit I thought a better way was base the test in assert macro which I use a lot like defensive program technique. So I used the same idea of Minunit mixed with standard assert. You can see my framework (a good name could be NoMinunit) in k0ga's blog
Google has excellent testing framework. https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/docs/primer.md
And yes, as far as I see it will work with plain C, i.e. doesn't require C++ features (may require C++ compiler, not sure).
cmockery at http://code.google.com/p/cmockery/
Cmockery is a recently launched project that consists on a very simple to use C library for writing unit tests.
First, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unit_testing_frameworks#C
My company has a C library our customers use. We use CxxTest (a C++ unit test library) to test the code. CppUnit will also work. If you're stuck in C, I'd recommend RCUNIT (but CUnit is good too).
If you are familiar with JUnit then I recommend CppUnit.
http://cppunit.sourceforge.net/cppunit-wiki
That is assuming you have c++ compiler to do the unit tests. if not then I have to agree with Adam Rosenfield that check is what you want.
I used RCUNIT to do some unit testing for embedded code on PC before testing on the target. Good hardware interface abstraction is important else endianness and memory mapped registers are going to kill you.
try lcut! - http://code.google.com/p/lcut
API Sanity Checker — test framework for C/C++ libraries:
An automatic generator of basic unit tests for a shared C/C++ library. It is able to generate reasonable (in most, but unfortunately not all, cases) input data for parameters and compose simple ("sanity" or "shallow"-quality) test cases for every function in the API through the analysis of declarations in header files.
The quality of generated tests allows to check absence of critical errors in simple use cases. The tool is able to build and execute generated tests and detect crashes (segfaults), aborts, all kinds of emitted signals, non-zero program return code and program hanging.
Examples:
Test suite for fontconfig 2.8.0
Test suite for FreeType 2.4.8
One technique to use is to develop the unit test code with a C++ xUnit framework (and C++ compiler), while maintaining the source for the target system as C modules.
Make sure you regularly compile your C source under your cross-compiler, automatically with your unit tests if possible.
LibU (http://koanlogic.com/libu) has an unit test module that allows explicit test suite/case dependencies, test isolation, parallel execution and a customizable report formatter (default formats are xml and txt).
The library is BSD licensed and contains many other useful modules - networking, debugging, commonly used data structures, configuration, etc. - should you need them in your projects ...
I'm surprised that no one mentioned Cutter (http://cutter.sourceforge.net/)
You can test C and C++, it seamlessly integrates with autotools and has a really nice tutorial available.
In case you are targeting Win32 platforms or NT kernel mode, you should have a look at cfix.
If you're still on the hunt for test frameworks, CUnitWin32 is one for the Win32/NT platform.
This solves one fundamental problem that I faced with other testing frameworks. Namely global/static variables are in a deterministic state because each test is executed as a separate process.