share
Stack OverflowHow can I unit test Arduino code?
[+225] [20] Matthew Murdoch
[2009-04-23 08:43:15]
[ unit-testing embedded arduino avr avr-gcc ]
[ https://stackoverflow.com/questions/780819/how-can-i-unit-test-arduino-code ]

I'd like to be able to unit test my Arduino code. Ideally, I would be able to run any tests without having to upload the code to the Arduino. What tools or libraries can help me with this?

There is an Arduino emulator in development [1] which could be useful, but it doesn't yet seem to be ready for use.

AVR Studio [2] from Atmel contains a chip simulator which could be useful, but I can't see how I would use it in conjunction with the Arduino IDE.

(1) There is another thread on this question from 2011 at arduino.cc/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=54356.0 - Jakob
(1) Thanks @Jakob. An Arduino simulator referenced in that thread (with other potentially useful links at the bottom of the page): arduino.com.au/Simulator-for-Arduino.html - Matthew Murdoch
(6) Unfortunately its only for Windows, I'd like to see a way to simply compile and run Arduino code from command line without any closed source or hardware dependencies. - Jakob
(4) A little update, 5 years later: Simavr is still very much active and has improved a lot since the question has been asked, so I thought it deserves being bumped closer to the top. And it might be the right tool for regression testing, scenario based testing and why not also unit testing. That way the code you test is the same as the one on the target hardware. - zmo
(1) For important projects, consider a hardware tester; another MCU than can time and test button/switch reactions, boot time, temp, v/ma usage, weird option permutations, etc. Yes, it's more hardware to build, but it can add a safety layer onto revision making. a lot of pro devices use jtag et al. - dandavis
(1) There is now a GitHub action available for this purpose, of which I am the author. - Ian
I don't see mentioned for instance arduino.cc/reference/en/libraries/aunit . An interesting article is doctormonk.com/2020/07/unit-testing-and-arduino.html - Mihai8
[+166] [2012-07-11 16:46:03] Iron Savior

Don't Run Unit Tests on the Arduino Device or Emulator

The case against microcontroller Device/Emulator/Sim-based tests

There's a lot of discussion about what unit test means and I'm not really trying to make an argument about that here. This post is not telling you to avoid all practical testing on your ultimate target hardware. I am trying to make a point about optimizing your development feedback cycle by eliminating your target hardware from your most mundane and frequent tests. The units under test are assumed to be much smaller than the whole project.

The purpose of unit testing is to test the quality of your own code. Unit tests should generally never test the functionality of factors outside of your control.

Think about it this way: Even if you were to test functionality of the Arduino library, the microcontroller hardware, or an emulator, it is absolutely impossible for such test results to tell you anything about the quality of your own work. Hence, it is far more valuable and efficient to write unit tests that do not run on the target device (or emulator).

Frequent testing on your target hardware has a painfully slow cycle:

  1. Tweak your code
  2. Compile and upload to Arduino device
  3. Observe behavior and guess whether your code is doing what you expect
  4. Repeat

Step 3 is particularly nasty if you expect to get diagnostic messages via serial port but your project itself needs to use your Arduino's only hardware serial port. If you were thinking that the SoftwareSerial library might help, you should know that doing so is likely to disrupt any functionality that requires accurate timing like generating other signals at the same time. This problem has happened to me.

Again, if you were to test your sketch using an emulator and your time-critical routines ran perfectly until you uploaded to the actual Arduino, then the only lesson you're going to learn is that the emulator is flawed--and knowing this still reveals nothing about the quality of your own work.

If it's silly to test on the device or emulator, what should I do?

You're probably using a computer to work on your Arduino project. That computer is orders of magnitudes faster than the microcontroller. Write the tests to build and run on your computer.

Remember, the behavior of the Arduino library and microcontroller should be assumed to be either correct or at least consistently incorrect.

When your tests produce output contrary to your expectations, then you likely have a flaw in your code that was tested. If your test output matches your expectations, but the program does not behave correctly when you upload it to the Arduino, then you know that your tests were based on incorrect assumptions and you likely have a flawed test. In either case, you will have been given real insights on what your next code changes should be. The quality of your feedback is improved from "something is broken" to "this specific code is broken".

How to Build and Run Tests on Your PC

The first thing you need to do is identify your testing goals. Think about what parts of your own code you want to test and then make sure to construct your program in such a way that you can isolate discrete parts for testing.

If the parts that you want to test call any Arduino functions, you will need to provide mock-up replacements in your test program. This is much less work than it seems. Your mock-ups don't have to actually do anything but providing predictable input and output for your tests.

Any of your own code that you intend to test needs to exist in source files other than the .pde sketch. Don't worry, your sketch will still compile even with some source code outside of the sketch. When you really get down to it, little more than your program's normal entry point should be defined in the sketch file.

All that remains is to write the actual tests and then compile it using your favorite C++ compiler! This is probably best illustrated with a real world example.

An actual working example

One of my pet projects found here [1] has some simple tests that run on the PC. For this answer submission, I'll just go over how I mocked-up some of Arduino library functions and the tests I wrote to test those mock-ups. This is not contrary to what I said before about not testing other people's code because I was the one who wrote the mock-ups. I wanted to be very certain that my mock-ups were correct.

Source of mock_arduino.cpp, which contains code that duplicates some support functionality provided by the Arduino library:

#include <sys/timeb.h>
#include "mock_arduino.h"

timeb t_start;
unsigned long millis() {
  timeb t_now;
  ftime(&t_now);
  return (t_now.time  - t_start.time) * 1000 + (t_now.millitm - t_start.millitm);
}

void delay( unsigned long ms ) {
  unsigned long start = millis();
  while(millis() - start < ms){}
}

void initialize_mock_arduino() {
  ftime(&t_start);
}

I use the following mock-up to produce readable output when my code writes binary data to the hardware serial device.

fake_serial.h

#include <iostream>

class FakeSerial {
public:
  void begin(unsigned long);
  void end();
  size_t write(const unsigned char*, size_t);
};

extern FakeSerial Serial;

fake_serial.cpp

#include <cstring>
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>

#include "fake_serial.h"

void FakeSerial::begin(unsigned long speed) {
  return;
}

void FakeSerial::end() {
  return;
}

size_t FakeSerial::write( const unsigned char buf[], size_t size ) {
  using namespace std;
  ios_base::fmtflags oldFlags = cout.flags();
  streamsize oldPrec = cout.precision();
  char oldFill = cout.fill();

  cout << "Serial::write: ";
  cout << internal << setfill('0');

  for( unsigned int i = 0; i < size; i++ ){
    cout << setw(2) << hex << (unsigned int)buf[i] << " ";
  }
  cout << endl;

  cout.flags(oldFlags);
  cout.precision(oldPrec);
  cout.fill(oldFill);

  return size;
}

FakeSerial Serial;

and finally, the actual test program:

#include "mock_arduino.h"

using namespace std;

void millis_test() {
  unsigned long start = millis();
  cout << "millis() test start: " << start << endl;
  while( millis() - start < 10000 ) {
    cout << millis() << endl;
    sleep(1);
  }
  unsigned long end = millis();
  cout << "End of test - duration: " << end - start << "ms" << endl;
}

void delay_test() {
  unsigned long start = millis();
  cout << "delay() test start: " << start << endl;
  while( millis() - start < 10000 ) {
    cout << millis() << endl;
    delay(250);
  }
  unsigned long end = millis();
  cout << "End of test - duration: " << end - start << "ms" << endl;
}

void run_tests() {
  millis_test();
  delay_test();
}

int main(int argc, char **argv){
  initialize_mock_arduino();
  run_tests();
}

This post is long enough, so please refer to my project on GitHub [2] to see some more test cases in action. I keep my works-in-progress in branches other than master, so check those branches for extra tests, too.

I chose to write my own lightweight test routines, but more robust unit-test frameworks like CppUnit are also available.

[1] https://github.com/IronSavior/dsm2_tx
[2] https://github.com/IronSavior/dsm2_tx

This could read "don't test on any system." Any real device (embedded or not) is not pure, so we should test via symbolic/mathematical proof only? Unit tests test code in context of choices (language, compiler, flags, libraries), all of which effect correctness. See how "I have developed and tested correct code, just not for the compiler and platform we chose for the project." flies with your project manager before going too purist on testing. ArduinoUnit supports unit testing on Arduinos, but it does have to be run or simulated somewhere. - Warren MacEvoy
(7) @WarrenMacEvoy Again, I think you've taken my advice and made it into something that it is not. You should certainly test your code in its actual environment AT SOME POINT. My argument is that you should not do that every day and you certainly shouldn't call it a unit test. - Iron Savior
Can you run things 'natively' while ensuring that types are the same sizes as on your arduino? It might mask overflow/underflow issues that might crop up on arduino hardware if your testing environment has bigger types by default? - NeilenMarais
@NeilenMarais that is also a dependency that can be mocked. You may wind up using compiler-specific features to ensure a certain behavior under test, but that should be limited to your test rig code. - Iron Savior
The first part of the answer is a bit weird. "Because the test on the device might not be as effective as other platforms, don't do it." Unit test running on the device should work without problem, especially if the test output goes to another serial port. - toasted_flakes
(1) @toasted_flakes I'm not sure where you got that quote, but it's not something I've said. Unit tests running on the device have a lot of problems--very slow feedback loop, you may not have any serial ports or any other means of IO to spare on your target device, and they have very limited capacity which can impact the scope of your test suite. - Iron Savior
@IronSavior This was the impression I had after reading the first part of your answer, but your comment clears it up. Thanks! - toasted_flakes
I disagree, strongly! There are numerous problems that can occur in embedded code that can only be found on the real hardware. The case for speed is correct. But the answer should not be "don't test on the real hardware". The answer should be to write tests that run on real hardware but also do not require real hardware to run. Run them on the PC as you go, with turnarounds of seconds, and on the device occasionally/nighlty. Anyone working on critical systems where money, security or even life is involved who would follow the advice in this answer would expose their project to severe risks. - Christian Hujer
(1) @ChristianHujer You should certainly test on real hardware--nobody is saying you should never test on target hardware. My post is about tightening your your daily development feedback cycle tight by unit testing on your development machine. Your testing overhead is minimized this way because you will only test on your target hardware when it is necessary. - Iron Savior
Great answer, imho. One can take a similar approach to testing for iPhone. Rather than running tests on the real device or even the simulator, build tests that just run on the development machine without requiring the iOS environment at all. They're then extremely fast to test. They don't allow you to test everything easily, but do give you extensive coverage. - Benjohn
… Trying to put this in to practice! :-) You mention "pde" files and sketches. I've done a quick find . -n "*.pde" in my sketches folder and that doesn't unearth anything. I'm using the "Arduino" dev tool. Can you advise on how to structure the project to break apart files so that they're easy to test? A link would be enough. Thanks! - Benjohn
(1) @Benjohn Arduino sketch source files used to have "pde" extension even though they're C++. arduino.cc/en/Guide/Environment#toc1 - Iron Savior
Okay, thanks. I've broken out most of my sketch in to a library, so I'm hoping I can just put a make file in the library folder and run tests from that at the command line. - Benjohn
For anyone choosing this approach, it's worked really well for me and helped me remove a bunch of errors in my Arduino graphics algorithms (well, "LED" wibbling algorithms", if I'm honest). I used the catch unit testing framework and I wanted to encourage anyone else having a go at this to check it out. It's preposterously easy to get it up and running, and it makes writing tests trivial and clean. Definitely well worth a go. - Benjohn
"there is absolutely no value in writing unit tests that run on the device" that is a short sighted perspective. The value is in the information it provides to the user. Only the user decides that for himself. You can not state this as fact. The info you obtain by it is that you know how certain code behaves, on the device. For instance, recreating Tasks with FreeRTOS will cause memory fragmentation and will cause issues. You will not experience this on Windows. You should take the words 'unit tests' for what they mean, not for how you are used applying them. They test a unit, that is all. - Mike de Klerk
@MikedeKlerk You're describing integration tests, not unit tests. Perhaps "absolutely no value" is overstating the case in general, but I mean this in the context of rapid-cycle unit testing. - Iron Savior
@IronSavior I'm curious to get your comments on my arduino_ci library (mentioned in my answer), which appears to meet your criteria: (1) runs on PC, not device (2) has rich mock capability for built-in functions, and (3) can run as part of a CI service like Travis or Appveyor. - Ian
Unless you can convince your compiler to use the IP16 data model on the PC, you are at the risk of getting some surprises. Try this: unsigned short x = 42; Serial.println(-x>0 ? "This is Arduino" : "This is PC");. - Edgar Bonet
@EdgarBonet That's correct. You can't ever perfectly reproduce all production conditions in test environments. You still have to be aware of the edges like this. - Iron Savior
@IronSavior, Is the link still valid? I can't find the sample code on GitHub. - James Foster
I think this argument falls apart when you consider how easy it is to make C or C++ code include implementation defined behavior (or even undefined behavior that actually behaves in a expected way on your main development machine) or when you deliberately add platform specific code in multiplatform projects. - cube
1
[+69] [2009-04-26 20:12:38] Matthew Murdoch [ACCEPTED]

In the absence of any pre-existing unit test frameworks for Arduino, I have created ArduinoUnit [1]. Here's a simple Arduino sketch demonstrating its use:

#include <ArduinoUnit.h>

// Create test suite
TestSuite suite;

void setup() {
    Serial.begin(9600);    
}

// Create a test called 'addition' in the test suite
test(addition) {
    assertEquals(3, 1 + 2);
}

void loop() {
    // Run test suite, printing results to the serial port
    suite.run();
}
[1] http://github.com/mmurdoch/arduinounit/

(21) The tests seem to run only on the arduino, so you cannot execute them automatically on your development machine. The basic idea of unit tests is to run them automatically, so the current design seems to be more a debugging tool but no real unit testing framework. - Jakob
(1) You're right. To be able to run these on a PC would, in addition, require either an Arduino or AVR emulator. There is no real hardware abstraction layer in the Arduino libraries (at the moment) and the AVR emulators when I looked were all still in development. If things have moved on now then in principle this could be done. - Matthew Murdoch
@MatthewMurdoch I think this is a great idea. I know I'd be interested in something like this once a proper AVR emulator is out. - gotnull
@MatthewMurdoch What is the point of running unit tests on the microcontroller? You're supposed to test your own code, not the Arduino itself, you know. - Iron Savior
(1) @IronSavior The same reason you would run unit tests for a desktop application on a desktop computer. They validate that the code you've written functions correctly in its intended environment. - Matthew Murdoch
(14) @MatthewMurdoch I'm afraid that you're incorrect. By definition, unit tests are never run in the target environment. In fact, the very idea behind unit testing is to completely eliminate the target environment from testing. They're always run in a lab-like environment that mocks all of the activity external to the unit being tested so as to ensure that the success or failure of the test reflects ONLY on the unit under test. That's one of the biggest reasons people use the concept of Inversion of Control in complex projects. - Iron Savior
What you're suggesting here can be called testing, but you can't call it "unit testing". - Iron Savior
Interesting idea @IronSavior Savior. Are you suggesting that the C++ classes and their tests shall be compiled against the architecture the Arduino IDE runs on and tested there? - marcv81
@marcv81 No, you would use a compiler for your development system. - Iron Savior
(1) @IronSavior I think this is what I meant. So if you run the unit tests in the development environment rather than the target, what about architecture-specific code? For instance what if a test relies on the size of integer types, which is unspecified in C++ but might be set for the target environment and may vary on the development environment (because you never know who may fork your project)? - marcv81
(2) @marcv81 Areas where such portability issues exist are very likely to be poor subjects for unit testing. Remember that unit tests should only test YOUR code, so limit their scope accordingly. With the vast disparity in hardware that we're talking about here, I can accept that some such circumstances may be unavoidable. In those cases, an engineer should remain cognizant and take mitigating steps. This could mean altering your design to improve testability or even something as simple as just documenting the relevant facts. - Iron Savior
(2) @Iron Savior a unit test tests your code, but your code runs somewhere. If that context is or emulates an Arduino context; then ArdunoUnit will help you write unit tests. If you look at the ArduinoUnit project, the meta-testing of the framework automatically loads, runs, and verifies the results of the test on the cross-platform target. Just like you would on other cross-platform targets. Your point of view is an excuse for not testing code in an embedded environment where correctness matters as much, if not often more, than other contexts. - Warren MacEvoy
@WarrenMacEvoy You are conflating unit tests with other kinds of testing. - Iron Savior
(1) @Iron Savior - I am pointing out that the true purest unit test is almost useless. Your world just always includes an (for example) ALU. I have used C compilers where short meant 1 bit. How much of your code would work there? All code is written in context of assumptions. Short of symbolic proofs of correctness (a purest unit test), all your tests have run under a set of assumptions (even a symbolic proof will have assumptions actually). And you consider them unit tests. - Warren MacEvoy
@WarrenMacEvoy You're only at the compiler's mercy if you allow yourself to be. Arch-specific conditions are also valid subjects of automatic testing. It's not like there's nothing you can do about architecture-specific conditions. If that were the case, then there wouldn't be much cross-architecture code written in C (and there is). I think you're still confusing what I'm saying. I'm not talking about TDD--I'm talking about automatic testing and nothing else. - Iron Savior
@IronSavior I built on the work that MatthewMurdoch did and made it possible to run unit tests on the PC and not in the target (Arduino) environment. My answer is here and I'd appreciate your thoughts. - Ian
There is a way to use ArduinoUnit using Emulare, Arduino emulator. Therefore, we don't need to deploy it on the actual device. And it works very well with Emulare. Thank you Matthew for creating ArduinoUnit. - newbie programmerz
2
[+23] [2009-04-23 13:13:53] David Sykes

I have considerable success unit testing my PIC code by abstracting out the hardware access and mocking it in my tests.

For example, I abstract PORTA with

#define SetPortA(v) {PORTA = v;}

Then SetPortA can easily be mocked, without adding overhead code in the PIC version.

Once the hardware abstraction has been tested a while I soon find that generally code goes from the test rig to the PIC and works first time.

Update:

I use a #include seam for the unit code, #including the unit code in a C++ file for the test rig, and a C file for the target code.

As an example I want to multiplex four 7 segment displays, one port driving the segments and a second selecting the display. The display code interfaces with the displays via SetSegmentData(char) and SetDisplay(char). I can mock these in my C++ test rig and check that I get the data I expect. For the target I use #define so that I get a direct assignment without the overhead of a function call

#define SetSegmentData(x) {PORTA = x;}

I can see in principle how I can use the preprocessor 'seam' for unit testing. However I'm not sure how I can do this without having an emulator on which to run the tests or an avr-gcc compatible compiler which outputs (in my case) Windows binaries... - Matthew Murdoch
Thanks for the update. Do you execute the unit tests on the PIC or on your PC? - Matthew Murdoch
The unit tests are run on a Mac using Xcode. To run them on the Pic probably would need an emulator of some kind. Abstracting it so it runs on the Mac makes switching processors a great deal easieer - David Sykes
The Arduino environment uses the avr-gcc compiler which has some idiosyncrasies which mean that compiling with gcc (or other C++ compiler) and running on a PC may not mean that the code will also compile on avr-gcc. - Matthew Murdoch
What kind of difference are you talking about? Are they things that can't be handled with some preprocessor directives? - Joseph Lisee
David, thanks for sharing, this is exactly what I was looking for. Can you share a repo with a sample example showing this approach of testing, maybe one unit test rhar is testing a function in a c file that depends on device APIs. - Glenn Block
@GlennBlock Sorry Glenn, it's been a while since I had any of this code in a usable state - David Sykes
3
[+15] [2009-11-20 21:08:23] Gonzo

It seems that emulino [1] would do the job perfectly.

Emulino is an emulator for the Arduino platform by Greg Hewgill. ( Source [2])

GitHub repository [3]

[1] http://ghewgill.livejournal.com/129929.html
[2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Emulino
[3] https://github.com/ghewgill/emulino

4
[+13] [2010-02-01 17:25:01] Gonzo

simavr [1] is an AVR simulator using avr-gcc.

It already supports a few ATTiny and ATMega microcontrollers, and - according to the author - it's easy to add some more.

In the examples lies simduino, an Arduino emulator. It supports running the Arduino bootloader and can be programmed with avrdude through Socat [2] (a modified Netcat [3]).

[1] https://gitorious.org/simavr
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcat#Variants
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcat

5
[+11] [2011-10-24 10:44:46] ponty

You can unit test in Python with my project, PySimAVR [1]. Arscons is used for building and simavr for simulation.

Example:

from pysimavr.sim import ArduinoSim    
def test_atmega88():
    mcu = 'atmega88'
    snippet = 'Serial.print("hello");'

    output = ArduinoSim(snippet=snippet, mcu=mcu, timespan=0.01).get_serial()
    assert output == 'hello'

Start test:

$ nosetests pysimavr/examples/test_example.py
pysimavr.examples.test_example.test_atmega88 ... ok
[1] https://github.com/ponty/pysimavr

6
[+7] [2018-03-07 21:59:14] Ian

I built arduino_ci [1] for this purpose. Although it's limited to testing Arduino libraries (and not standalone sketches), it enables unit tests to be run either locally or on a CI system (like Travis CI or Appveyor).

Consider a very simple library in your Arduino Library directory, called DoSomething, with do-something.cpp:

#include <Arduino.h>
#include "do-something.h"

int doSomething(void) {
  return 4;
};

You'd unit test it as follows (with a test file called test/is_four.cpp or some such):

#include <ArduinoUnitTests.h>
#include "../do-something.h"

unittest(library_does_something)
{
  assertEqual(4, doSomething());
}

unittest_main()  // this is a macro for main().  just go with it.

That's all. If that assertEqual syntax and test structure looks familiar, it's because I adopted some of Matthew Murdoch's ArduinoUnit library [2] that he referred to in his answer [3].

See Reference.md [4] for more information about unit testing I/O pins, the clock, Serial ports, etc.

These unit tests are compiled and run using a script contained in a ruby gem. For examples of how to set that up, see the README.md [5] or just copy from one of these examples:

[1] https://github.com/Arduino-CI/arduino_ci
[2] https://github.com/mmurdoch/arduinounit
[3] https://stackoverflow.com/a/791519/2063546
[4] https://github.com/Arduino-CI/arduino_ci/blob/master/REFERENCE.md
[5] https://github.com/Arduino-CI/arduino_ci/blob/master/README.md
[6] https://github.com/sdesalas/Arduino-Queue.h/pull/1/files
[7] https://github.com/SMFSW/Queue/pull/9
[8] https://github.com/adafruit/Adafruit_FONA/pull/91/files
[9] https://github.com/Arduino-CI/arduino_ci/tree/master/SampleProjects/DoSomething

This looks interesting, but I'm not sure that it's correctly testing Arduino code. From the output you posted, it's compiling to x86_64 architecture, which obviously isn't used for the Arduino. That could introduce bugs caused by conflicts between type implementations. - Cerin
That sort of bug is certainly possible. Do you have an example I could use for a test case? - Ian
7
[+6] [2009-04-23 09:14:27] Yuval Adam

I am not aware of any platform which can test Arduino code.

However, there is the Fritzing [1] platform, which you can use to model the hardware and later on export PCB diagrams and stuff.

Worth checking.

[1] http://fritzing.org/

8
[+6] [2010-10-04 00:52:28] toddstavish

We are using Arduino boards for data acquisition in a large scientific experiment. Subsequently, we have to support several Arduino boards with different implementations. I wrote Python utilities to dynamically load Arduino hex images during unit testing. The code found on the link below supports Windows and Mac OS X via a configuration file. To find out where your hex images are placed by the Arduino IDE, hit the shift key before you hit the build (play) button. Hit the shift key while hitting upload to find out where your avrdude (command line upload utility) is located on your system / version of Arduino. Alternatively, you can look at the included configuration files and use your install location (currently on Arduino 0020).

http://github.com/toddstavish/Python-Arduino-Unit-Testing


+1 Great stuff! Do you have any information on how you did your unit testing once the images were uploaded? - Matthew Murdoch
We used nosetests to run our unit tests on the python side. The setup for each tests loads the correct hex image for that test. We start small and then work into more comprehensive testing. Make sure serial communication is working, make sure serial integration to the UI is working, check serial to DB integration, etc. The analog_read_speed pde and py show the basics of this (see github link above). Eventually, we will open source the entire project, so please stay tuned. :) - toddstavish
9
[+6] [2013-01-11 12:59:39] jeroendoggen

This program allows automated running of several Arduino unit tests. The testing process is started on the PC but the tests run on the actual Arduino hardware. One set of unit tests is typically used to test one Arduino library. (this

Arduino Forum: http://arduino.cc/forum/index.php?topic=140027.0

GitHub project page: http://jeroendoggen.github.com/Arduino-TestSuite

Page in the Python Package Index: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/arduino_testsuite

The unit tests are written with the "Arduino Unit Testing Library": http://code.google.com/p/arduinounit

The following steps are performed for each set of unit tests:

  • Read the config file to find out which tests to run
  • The script compiles and uploads an Arduino sketch that contains the unit testing code.
  • The unit tests are run on the Arduino board.
  • The results of the test are printed over the serial port and analyzed by the Python script.
  • The script starts the next test, repeating the above steps for all test that are requested in the configuration file.
  • The script prints a summary showing an overview of all the failed/passed tests in the complete testsuite.

10
[+5] [2010-11-30 14:46:28] Rafael Vega

James W. Grenning writes great books and this one is about unit testing embedded C code Test Driven Development for Embedded C [1].

[1] http://pragprog.com/titles/jgade/test-driven-development-for-embedded-c

11
[+5] [2011-10-24 12:14:42] Alexey Frunze

Keep hardware-specific code separate or abstracted away from the rest so you can test and debug that bigger "rest" on any platform for which you have good tools and with which you're familiar most.

Basically, try to build as much of the final code from as many known-to-work building blocks as possible. The remaining hardware-specific work will then be much easier and faster. You may finish it by using existing emulators and/or emulating devices on your own. And then, of course, you'll need to test the real thing somehow. Depending on circumstances, that may or may not be very well automatable (i.e. who or what will press buttons and provide other inputs? who or what will observe and interpret various indicators and outputs?).


12
[+5] [2014-01-10 23:40:44] user3183814

I am using Searduino [1] when writing Arduino code. Searduino is an Arduino simulator and a development environment (Makefiles, C code ...) that makes it easy to hack in C/C++ using your favorite editor. You can import Arduino sketches and run them in the simulator.

Screenshot of Searduino 0.8: http://searduino.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/jearduino-0-8.png

Searduino 0.9 will be released and a video will be recorded as soon as the lasts tests are done .... in a day or two.

Testing on the simulator is not to be considered as real tests, but it certainly have helped me a lot in finding stupid/logical mistakes (forgetting to do pinMode(xx, OUTPUT), etc.).

BTW: I am one of the people developing Searduino.

[1] http://searduino.wordpress.com/

13
[+3] [2012-08-06 15:21:19] Sudar

There is a project called ncore [1], which provides native core for Arduino. And allows you to write tests for Arduino code.

From the project description

The native core allows you to compile and run Arduino sketches on the PC, generally with no modification. It provides native versions of standard Arduino functions, and a command-line interepreter to give inputs to your sketch that would normally come from the hardware itself.

Also on the "what do I need to use it" section [2]

If you want to build the tests, you'll need cxxtest from http://cxxtest.tigris.org. NCORE has been tested with cxxtest 3.10.1.

[1] https://github.com/maniacbug/ncore
[2] https://github.com/maniacbug/ncore#what-do-i-need-to-use-it

This is an interesting project. Unfortunately, it looks like it's now dead, as it's had no progress for 6 years. - Cerin
14
[+2] [2017-08-19 18:10:35] ezaquarii

If you want to unit-test code outside MCU (on desktop), check out libcheck: https://libcheck.github.io/check/

I used it to test my own embedded code few times. It's pretty robust framework.


The only downside is that this doesn't support g++, which makes it useless for testing most Arduino libraries that use C++ features. - Cerin
15
[+1] [2012-05-23 17:38:45] Imre

You can use emulare [1] — you can drag and drop a microcontroller on a diagram and run your code in Eclipse. The documentation on the website tells you how to set it up.

[1] http://www.emulare.org

16
[+1] [2017-01-03 07:53:26] Sidhant Goyal

Try Autodesk circuit simulator. It allows to test Arduino code and circuits with many other hardware components.


17
[+1] [2017-04-17 13:49:56] sathish

Use Proteus VSM with an Arduino library to debug your code or to test it.

It is a best practice before getting your code onboard, but be sure with timings because the simulation does not run realtime as they run on the board.


18
[0] [2018-11-23 05:20:44] Nandha Frost

In basic Arduino is written with C and C++, even libraries of arduino are written in C and C++. So,in simple terms just handle the code as C and C++ and try doing the unit testing. Here, by the word "handle" I mean you to change all the basic syntax like serial.println to sysout, pinmode to varaibles, void loop to while() loop which breaks either in keystock or after some iteration.

I know this is little a long process and not so straight forward.On my personal experience, once you get to do with it, this turns to be more reliable.

-Nandha_Frost


19
[0] [2019-09-14 07:07:58] Tomáš Hübelbauer

In case you are interested in running an INO sketch and checkout the serial output, I have a working implementation of that in my Arduino NMEA checksum [1] project.

The following script takes the file and uses Arduino CLI to compile it to a HEX file which is then loaded to SimAVR which evaluates it and prints the serial output. Since all Arduino programs run forever without really having an option of killing themselves (exit(0) doesn't work), I let the sketch run for a few seconds and then diff the captured output with expected output.

Download and extract Arduino CLI (in this case version 0.5.0 - latest at the time of writing):

curl -L https://github.com/arduino/arduino-cli/releases/download/0.5.0/arduino-cli_0.5.0_Linux_64bit.tar.gz -o arduino-cli.tar.gz
tar -xvzf arduino-cli.tar.gz

Now you can update the index and install the appropriate core:

./arduino-cli core update-index
./arduino-cli core install arduino:avr

Assuming your sketch is named nmea-checksum.ino, to get ELF and HEX, run:

./arduino-cli compile -b arduino:avr:uno nmea-checksum.ino

Next up, SimAVR to run the HEX (or ELF) - I build from source because the latest release didn't work for me:

sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install -y build-essential libelf-dev avr-libc gcc-avr freeglut3-dev libncurses5-dev pkg-config
git clone https://github.com/buserror/simavr.git
cd simavr
make

Successful compilation will give you simavr/run_avr which you can use to run the sketch. Like I said, timeout it otherwise it will never terminate:

cd simavr
timeout 10 ./run_avr -m atmega168 -f 16000000 ../../nmea-checksum.ino.arduino.avr.uno.elf &> nmea-checksum.ino.clog || true

The generated file will have ANSI color code control characters wrapping the serial output, to get rid of those:

cat nmea-checksum.ino.clog | sed -r "s/\x1B\[([0-9]{1,2}(;[0-9]{1,2})?)?[mGK]//g" > nmea-checksum.ino.log
cat nmea-checksum.ino.log

Now all you need to do is compared this file to a known good file:

diff nmea-checksum.ino.log ../../nmea-checksum.ino.test

If there are no differences, diff will exit with code 0, otherwise the script will fail.

[1] https://github.com/TomasHubelbauer/arduino-nmea-checksum

20