Here is a good question, and my reply, from a recent attendee of my Test-Driven Development for Embedded C training.
As I work more with TDD, one of the concepts I am still struggling to grasp is how to test “leaf” components that touch real hardware. For example, I am trying to write a UART driver. How do I test that using TDD? It seems like to develop/write the tests, I will need to write a fake UART driver that doesn’t touch any hardware. Let’s say I do that. Now I have a really nice TDD test suite for UART drivers. However, I still need to write a real UART driver…and I can’t even run the TDD tests I created for it on the hardware. What value am I getting from taking the TDD approach here?
I feel like for low-level, hardware touching stuff you can’t really apply TDD. I understand if I didn’t have the hardware I could write a Mock, but in my case I have the hardware so why not just write the real driver?
I am really confused about this…and so are my co-workers. Can you offer any words of wisdom to help us see the light?
Seeking the Light
Hi Seeking the Light
I am happy to help. Thanks for the good question.
Unit tests and integration tests are different. We focussed on unit testing in the class. You test-drove the flash driver Tuesday afternoon. That showed you how to test-drive a device driver from the spec. You mocked out IORead and IOWrite, not the flash driver. You test-drove the flash driver so that when you go to the hardware you have code that is doing what you think it is supposed to do.
The unit tests you write with mock IO are not meant to run with the real IO device, but with the fake versions of IORead and IOWrite. You could run the test suite on the real hardware, but the unit tests would still use mock IO.
I think the flash driver exercise illustrated the value. Pretty much everyone that does the flash driver exercise cannot get the ready loop right without several attempts. Most end up with an infinite loop, or a loop that does not run at all. With the TDD approach, we discover logic mistakes like that during off-target TDD. We want to find logic mistakes during test-driving because they are easy to identify and fix with the fast feedback TDD provides. Finding the problem on-target with a lot of other code (that can be wrong) is more difficult and time consuming. If your diver ready check resulted in an infinite loop, that can be hard to find. Maybe your watchdog timer will keep resetting the board as you hunt for the problem. Bottom line, it is cheaper to find those mistakes with TDD.
TDD can’t find every problem. What if you were wrong about which bit was the ready bit? An integration test could find it. An integration test would use the real UART driver with the real IORead and IOWrite functions. These tests make sure that the driver works with the real hardware. These are different than the unit tests and are worth writing. You could put a loopback connector on your UART connector. Your integration test could send and receive test data over the loopback. If your was looking at the wrong bit for the ready check, you would still have an infinite loop, but that happens only if you mis-read the spec. You’d have to find that mistake via review or integration test.
An integration test may be partially automated. You don’t need to run these so often so, partial automation should be OK. You would only rerun them when you touch the driver or are doing some release. (Loopback is probably better in this case as it can run unattended.) So the test might output a string to a terminal and wait for a string to be entered. Depending on other signals that your driver supports, you may want to breakout and control those signals in a physical test harness.
An integration test for the flash driver would exercise the flash device through the driver. You might read and write blocks of values to the real flash device. You might do the flash identification sequence. You might protect a block and try to write to it. Your integration test would make sure modification is prevented and generates the right error message. These tests use the real versions of IORead and IOWrite and run on the hardware only. When integration problems are found, solve them and then go back to the unit tests and make them reflect reality. You will know which tests need to be changed, because once the integration problems are fixed, the associated unit test will fail.
Some other words in your question makes me want to talk about a fake UART driver. You will want a fake UART driver when you are test-driving code that uses the UART driver. For example a message processor that waits for a string will be much easier to test if you fake the get_string() function. You can build that fake with mocking or hand crafted, depending upon your needs.
All that said, in general the test above the hardware abstraction layer (the layer your UART driver is part of) are the most valuable tests. They should encompass your product’s intelligence and uniqueness. Hardware comes and then it goes, as do the drivers as the components change. Your business logic has, or should have, a long useful life. The business logic for a successful product should last longer than any hardware platform’s life. Consequently those test have a longer useful life too. If I was creating a driver from scratch, I would use TDD because it is the fastest way for me to work, and results in code that can be safely changed as I discover where my mistakes are.
I hope this helps.
How about this from experience. A UART can drop characters. We all know that is true, but it does not really happen, or we never see it, right?
We never did, tested for hours, huge amounts of data and commands. Not a problem.
The customer called up angry and hot. Their engineer had wasted days trying to debug our crappy serial connection. When I arrived, and asked to see the box, it was in the lab. He was working in his cube, and the UART connection was via a series of serial cables, about 80 feet, with no one cable longer than maybe 15 feet, finally ending in a small stack of NULL adapters and a gender changer into the back of the PC.
We added a CRC to the send/recv data and all was well.
How do you inject errors to be caught at the layer above the UART? Are you sure that code works?