TDD Zombies

Not these zombies

When I first used TDD I read James Grenning’s book Test Driven Development for Embedded C. In this book James proposed following a pattern for developing tests to test for zero, then one and then many (ZOM). Recently he has developed this idea further into ZOMBIE testing.

Z – Zero
O – One
M – Many (or More complex)
B – Boundary Behaviors
I – Interface definition
E – Exercise Exceptional behavior
S – Simple Scenarios, Simple Solutions

I’ve found this to be a really helpful pattern to follow when developing tests. To read more about it see James’ recent post TDD Guided by ZOMBIES

The Pragmatic Programmer

The Pragmatic Programmer from journeyman to master

The Pragmatic Programmer from journeyman to master

I think I originally read The Pragmatic Programmer by Andrew Hunt and David Thomas a good ten or fifteen years ago. I’ve just taken a couple of days while between contracts to re-read the book.

I was very pleased to find that the book is just as fresh as I remember, 70 great pragmatic tips to help you develop from a journeyman to a master. Given that the book is 16 years old, there are references to technology that seems dated, e.g. version control without SVN or GIT. However the technology referenced is not the point of the book, it is completely geared around taking pragmatic steps to produce better software.

If you want to grow as a software engineer, this book is still a must read.

Learning Python


Python has never been a language I have had to know well. I’ve adapted existing scripts, I’ve created a few simple scripts from scratch. But I haven’t learnt it properly, just the parts I’ve needed.

I decided it was about time I learnt the language properly. A friend recommended that I take a look at python koans. A koan is a riddle or puzzle use in Zen mediation to help gain enlightenment.

Python Koans is an interactive tutorial for learning the Python programming language by making tests pass. Tests are executed by executing


A single test will fail, tell you what has failed, and what you need to think about to make it pass.

Most tests are fixed by filling the missing parts of assert functions. Eg:

self.assertEqual(__, 1+2)

which can be fixed by replacing the __ part with the appropriate code:

self.assertEqual(3, 1+2)

Very quickly I got in a rhythm, much like TDD, red, fix, green, repeat. I would definitely recommend this as a way of learning the language.


Refactoring C to Remove Feature Flags

You’ve read the books on Refactoring, on working with legacy code, on Unit Testing and on TDD. Then you look at the codebase you’ve inherited, it’s written in C, and it’s riddled with conditional compilation. Where do you start?



In years gone by feature flags were widely used in embedded systems as a means of having a common codebase shared across multiple devices. The devices varied in what hardware was present, what capacity there was in terms of RAM, ROM and performance. The devices also varied according to market demands, e.g. some features were only required on ‘premium’ products.

Now imagine how the codebase could have deteriorated over the years. Some of the code is forty years old, the code base has been targeted at fifty different hardware platforms, and at a marketing level there have been over one hundred different features. There are terrifying potential number of combinations of ways the software could be built.

How bad is your code? This command will show you how many different conditional statements there are in your code. Admittedly some will only be different because of whitespace, or because of the order of the flags.

grep --include=*.c --include=*.h -r -h '#if' . |sort -u | wc

I’ve been faced with a codebase containing 16000 different conditional include lines; codebases exist with many more than that. Where do you start? Should you start?

With this amount of conditional compilation, introducing Unit Testing may appear impossible, each test fixture can only be compiled with one combination of feature flags. You may be able to use it for new modules, but how about for maintenance? This article offers a step by step approach that I have used to remove feature flags, and remove conditional compilation from a large codebase (a few million lines).

As with all refactoring, there is a level of risk, the aim of these changes is to minimise the risk by taking baby steps and using a safety net.

Step 1 – Preparation – Repeatable builds

To remove a feature flag we need a test to know that we haven’t impacted the code. The method I like to use is to determine that the build produced a binary identical output before and after the change. Perform two complete builds and compare the build output. We need to get to the state where they are identical. There are multiple reasons why the output may vary, these need to be addressed before we attempt any refactoring:

  • Problem –  Time/Date of the build is included in the binary
  • Solution – Make the build use a fixed time for your test purposes. How you do this depends on how the time and date is injected into the build. Consider link time substitution of a fixed file, disabling that part of the makefile, or conditional compilation.
  • Problem – The version of a file or a checkout from the version control system is embedded in the build.
  • Solution – Be careful to checkout both copies from the same revision. If the revision information is in a single source file consider link time substitution to replace it with static values. If the information is in a single header file consider using the include path to prioritise a file with static values.
  • Problem – the file format of your binary includes the time that the build was performed.
  • Solution – Use another form of output to compare to decide the builds are identical, e.g. transform the output into a plain format such as .bin or SREC, or use a map file for comparison. (e.g. if using gnu, look at objcopy and strip)
  • Problem – the file format includes the paths of source files.
  • Solution – Use tools to strip debug information from the binary (e.g. if using gnu, look at objcopy and strip).  Or perform both builds in the same directory.

This process needs to be repeated for every build that is to be supported from your codebase. There may have been hundreds of products delivered, it is likely that only a small subset still require support. To be confident in your changes you must be sure that you are not impacting any of the current builds with your changes.

Step 2 – Identify redundant feature flags

We can identify a feature flag as redundant in each of these circumstances

  • It is defined to the same value on all supported platforms
  • It is undefined on all platforms
  • There are no longer any uses of the flag in the code
  • All uses of the feature flag are in sections of code removed by other feature flags

For cases 1, and 2, use the pre-processor to prove that your assumptions are correct by forcing a build that will fail only if your assumption is correct. (Choose the failing option because it is faster to test). For example, if you believe that FEATURE_A always has the value 1 on all platforms then add the following to a source file included early on in all builds



Then verify that all of your builds fail. If they do then you know that this flag is safe to remove.


Step 3 – Remove Feature Flags

Following on from the example above, assume that we have discovered that FEATURE_A always has the value 1 in all of the builds we need to support. How can we remove FEATURE_A when it may be mentioned in many of the thousands of files in our build? Removing by hand is going to be time consuming and worse error prone. 

To automate the process use unifdef. The command below invokes unifdef on every .c and every .h file below the current directory, and removes the conditional compilation related to FEATURE_A.

find . -name '*.[ch]' | xargs unifdef -DFEATURE_A=1 -m

Lets see what this did to our example function below. Not only has the #if FEATURE_A statement been removed, so to has #if FEATURE_A || FEATURE_B, unifdef was smart enough to determine that if FEATURE_A was defined the compound condition was always true.


At this stage rebuild all of the applications, verify that none of the binaries have changed and commit the change to version control. Then repeat for the next feature flag. Lets see one more example, suppose FEATURE_B is always undefined, unifdef can be used to remove the feature with this command

find . -name '*.[ch]' | xargs unifdef -UFEATURE_B -m

Here we can see that the code guarded by #ifdef FEATURE_B has been removed as well as the feature flag.


Verify that the binary output is identical, for all builds. Commit changes to version control and repeat.

Should you be worried about making these changes? What about the code that is being deleted, isn’t it valuable? No, it has no value. It isn’t included in any current builds, so it carries no current value. It adds confusion, and slows development, so it has cost and not value. If you ever have to look at what had previously been included in a feature you have removed, then your VCS provides a means for accessing that code. And if you have followed this process then you have a single commit for removal of each feature. 

I would repeat the above process for every feature flag that I suspect is identically defined in all live builds.

With the safety net of knowing all builds are binary identical, there is no risk of introducing bugs.

Step 4 – Removal of a feature flag that is in different states in different builds

Now if we consider the final conditional in our function, FEATURE_C; FEATURE_C is defined as 1 in some of our builds, and as 0 in others. How can we safely remove the conditional? Should we attempt to remove this conditional?

Personally I would attempt to remove this conditional only when I start working on code that is impacted by the conditional compilation, and not before.

It is unlikely that we are going to be able to make the changes to remove this feature and leave all builds binary identical, so we need another safety net to tell us that what we are doing has not had any nasty side effects.

To change the code away from using the pre-processor we must choose one of three other ways of varying the behaviour between builds.

  1. Compile Time Substitution
  2. Link Time Substitution
  3. Runtime Substitution

Lets assume we need to do some maintenance work in VeryLongFunction(). Before we try to make a functional change we want to get rid of this conditional compilation. And before we get rid of the conditional compilation we want tests to tell us that it is safe to do so.

So our first step is to create a test harness for this source file. Rather than re-state the process, look at James Grenning’s article TDD How-to: Get your Legacy C into a Test Harness. In this test harness have FEATURE_C defined as 1, so that our conditionally included code is included in the test harness.

Now write some tests that prove the functionality of VeryLongFunction(), including a test that checks calls to wibble only occur if the previous functions have succeeded.

Great we have a test harness, now we can start refactoring. In this scenario, Extract Method looks like a good refactoring to try. Lets pull out all of the code inside FEATURE_C into a well named method (FeatureCWibbleIfOK isn’t a great name, but it will do for our example, but do pay attention to the name you choose). We end up with something like:


All of our tests still pass, we are good to continue. The next step in our refactoring is to open up a seam to allow us to substitute different behaviour. We move the function out into a new source file and create a new header, say feature_c.c, and feature_c.h. These files should be included into our test harness, and our tests all still pass.

Next step is to produce a test fixture to prove feature_c, once this is done we can simplify the the tests in our original test harness to prove that FeatureCWibbleIfOK is being called correctly, and remove feature_c from that test harness.

We are now at a point where we can substitute different behaviour and we need to decide with of our three possibilities we will use. In the first two cases we should develop a new test fixture, initially a copy of feature_c test harness, using a copy of feature_c.c, modify the test to expect the behaviour with FEATURE_C undefined, run the tests and observe them fail. Undefined FEATURE_C in the test harness and observe the test pass. You can then remove the FEATURE_C feature flag and code.

Compile Time Substitution

In compile time substitution we can use the include path to insert one of two different copies of feature_c.h, for example, one could have a plain prototype

int FeatureCWibbleIfOK(int ret);

and the other could have a null inline implementation.

inline int FeatureCWibbleIfOK(int ret){return ret;};

Link Time Substitution

For link time substitution, a second copy of feature_c.c may look a bit like

#include "feature_c.h"
int FeatureCWibbleIfOK(int ret)
return ret;

Runtime Substitution

Here we presume that there is going to be some runtime check that allows us to determine if FEATURE_C is enabled. Use normal TDD methods to test drive this into your application.


Refactoring a large legacy code base that is riddled with conditional compilation is hard. However it can be safely achieved with care, allowing the code to be brought under control of test harnesses. You may never achieve full coverage of a test harness, but with care you should be able to bring the areas that you work on under control, get tests in place and gradually improve the quality and maintainability of the code.

It may be hard, but what other choices do you have



Developing the CODESYS runtime with TDD



I was recently working in the CODESYS runtime again, developing some components for a client and I thought the experience wold make the basis of a good post on bringing legacy code into a test environment, to enable Test Driven Development (TDD)

The CODESYS runtime is a component based system, and for most device manufacturers is delivered as a binary for their target system and a collection of header files and interface definitions. Much of the interface is generic, however there are platform specific headers that abstract the underlying RTOS. Device manufacturers often develop bespoke runtime components, to access proprietary IO for example. To help with this the delivered software package includes template components as a starting point for development. This means that, according to Michael Feathers definition of legacy code (code without tests), the starting point when developing a CODESYS component is legacy code. In this example the starting point was a partially developed component, legacy code.


The Plan

I tend to follow a fairly standard process when bringing legacy code under test. The basic process is well described in TDD How-to: Get your legacy C into a test harness on James Grenning’s blog.  I follow roughly the same process, with minor changes, my process can be summarised as follows

  • Select appropriate tools
  • Create a test harness with no reference to the code to be tested and a dummy failing test. Observe it fail. Fix the test and observe it pass.
  • Decide the boundaries of the code I want to test, and include this source in the test harness build.
  • Make the test harness compile (not link)
  • Make the code Link using exploding fakes.
  • Ensure the dummy test still passes
  • Add the first test of the code under test (expect it to crash or fail)
  • Make the test pass by adding initialisation, and using better fakes.
  • Add more tests, always observe them fail (force a failure if needs be – to check that the error output is meaningful), factor out common code into helper functions. Keep the tests small and testing one thing.
  • Add profiling, I like to be able to observe which parts of the code are under test before I make any changes. Particularly if the code under test has large complex functions it is the only way that I trust I have sufficient coverage before making code changes.


The development build of the component uses a gcc cross compiler on linux. The build is controlled by a makefile and there is already an eclipse project.

I will use the native gcc compiler to run the tests

For the testing framework I’m using googletest 1.8, my preferred test framework for C and C++

To help with creating fakes and mocks I will use Mike Long’s Fake Function Framework (fff).

I will add plugins to eclipse so that the whole process can happen in a single environment.


The first test

There are two ways of using googletest, one is to build it as a library and link it to the tests, the other is to fuse the source into a single file, and then include the fused source in the tests. On linux I tend to just build the library with default settings.

I’ve created a new folder called UnitTests to which I’ve added a makefile and a single source file with this content

#include "gtest/gtest.h"
TEST(FirstTest, ShouldPass)
} // namespace

The makefile, references just this source file, the include path has the path to googletest/include. The link line is shown below (I’ve omitted the paths for simplicity)

g++ FirstTest.o gtest_main.a -lpthread -o UnitTest

This builds, and when run fails as below


Change the the ASSERT_EQ so that the test passes, rebuild and re-run the tests.

Compiling with the UUT

The CODESYS component that that I’m working on consists of a single source file (The Unit Under Test UUT), and it links into a target specific library

To get the test application to compile I had to add three directories to the include path


NOTE: If the CODESYS runtime delivery is for a different operating system to the development system then it may be necessary to create fake versions of the headers in the Platforms directory. It may also be necessary to fake some of the RTOS header files.

Linking – Exploding Fakes

Having resolved the includes there are lots of unresolved symbols. A good starting point is to generate a file of exploding fakes, the idea here is to ensure that you know when you are faking code. Have a look at James’ exploding fake generator, this can easily be adapted to any linker and any test framework. Save the output of your failed link into a file, execute to generate a file of exploding fakes which you include into your build.

make >& make.out make.out explodingfake.c

The only other change required is to copy explodingfakes.h somewhere on the include path for the tests and adapt it to work with gtest as shown.

#include "gtest/gtest.h"
#define EXPLODING_FAKE_FOR(f) void f() { FAIL() << "go write a proper stub for " #f; }

Now the test application should run and pass again, none of the UUT is yet being executed.


Testing – Part 1

CODESYS components have well defined interfaces, and I find it pays to test from those interfaces rather then exposing internals of the component wherever possible. Taking this approach tends to lead to less fragile tests that are testing the functionality rather than the implementation.

All components implement CmpItf, an interface that allows the component to be registered and initialised. CmpItf requires a single extern function ComponentEntry to be declared, all other functions in the interface are accessed through function pointers returned by this function call. So my starting point is to write tests that test this interface.

The first tests are straight forward, and soon the ComponentEntry call itself is factored out into the test constructor.

#include "gtest/gtest.h"
extern "C"
#include "CmpMyComponentDep.h"
DLL_DECL RTS_INT CDECL ComponentEntry(INIT_STRUCT *pInitStruct);
class CmpItfTest: public ::testing::Test
m_rResult = ComponentEntry(&m_InitStruct);
RTS_RESULT m_rResult;
INIT_STRUCT m_InitStruct;
TEST_F(CmpItfTest, ComponentEntryShouldSucceed)
ASSERT_EQ(ERR_OK, m_rResult);
TEST_F(CmpItfTest, ComponentEntryShouldSetComponentID)
ASSERT_EQ(0x166B2002, m_InitStruct.CmpId);
TEST_F(CmpItfTest, CmpGetVersionShouldReturnCorrectVersion)
ASSERT_EQ(0x03050800, m_InitStruct.pfGetVersion());

Fairly soon I am testing code that calls into other CODESYS components, as soon as I do, the exploding fakes show up in the tests.



Using The Fake Function Framework

Now I need a more powerful fake, this is where the fake function framework comes in to it’s own. Creating a fake for EventOpen can be as simple as adding the following to the test source file, and making sure fff.h is on the include path

#include "fff.h"
#include "CmpEventMgrItf.h"

Having added this the link will fail with a message like

CmpEventMgrItf.fff.c:7: multiple definition of `EventOpen'

Remove the line from explodingfakes.c for EventOpen, and the tests should now run again.

It is then possible to write a simple test to prove that the EventOpen function has been called.

TEST_F(CmpItfTest, HookCH_INIT3ShouldOpenEvent)
    ASSERT_EQ(1, EventOpen_fake.call_count);

The Fake Function Framework includes facilities for recording a history of argument calls, setting return values and the ability to provide a custom fake. It makes a very powerful tool for testing C code, I’m not going to cover all of the features here there are plenty of other examples on the web. Do note though that fakes need to be reset for each new test. The constructor for my test fixture looks like this

    m_rResult = ComponentEntry(&m_InitStruct);

As tests grow and there become multiple test files using the same fakes it makes sense to pull the fakes out into separate files,. I follow a pattern, if I am faking functions defined in a file called XXX.h, I create XXX.fff.h and XXX.fff.c and define my fakes in these files. Most of the time I take the approach of generating each fake manually, one by one as required.

CODESYS specifies the interface to all components in .m4 files, in the delivery I have there are 164 interface files specified. I know that over time these interfaces will be extended, and more interfaces added. I have generated a tool to process the interface definitions and automatically generate fff fakes for each API function in each of the interfaces. I then build these fakes into a static library that can be linked with any component I develop.

There is a danger in automating fake generation, it becomes very easy to not realise when you are using a fake. Most API functions in CODESYS return an RTS_RESULT, ERR_OK means success. ERR_OK has the value of zero which is also the default value returned by fff fakes. If developing new code this isn’t a problem. But when bringing a legacy component under test it can lead to code appearing to be tested when it isn’t. This can be avoided by still using exploding fakes within fff.

To achieve all of this using the test library all I need in the tests is an include of the appropriate fake header file,

#include “CmpEventMgrItf.fff.h”

and the test constructor is changed to reset all of the CmpEventMgrItf fakes, set all of the fakes to explode, and then for the two functions that I want to fake I can disable the exploding behaviour.

    m_rResult = ComponentEntry(&m_InitStruct);
// Allow normal fake operation for these functions, all others in the interface will explode if called.
EventOpen_fake.custom_fake = NULL; 
EventRegisterCallbackFunction_fake.custom_fake = NULL;

What does the fakes library look like?

To show what is included in the library of fakes, for those who are interested below is the content of the CmpEventMgrItf fakes cut down to show just the two functions that have been used.


#ifndef __CmpEventMgrItf__FFF_H__
#define __CmpEventMgrItf__FFF_H__
#include "fff.h"
#include <string.h>
#include "fff_explode.h"
#include "CmpEventMgrItf.h"
DECLARE_FAKE_VALUE_FUNC2( RTS_RESULT, EventRegisterCallback , RTS_HANDLE , ICmpEventCallback * );
RTS_RESULT EventRegisterCallback_explode( RTS_HANDLE , ICmpEventCallback * );
#define FFF_CmpEventMgrItf_FAKES_LIST(FAKE) 
#endif /* __CmpEventMgrItf__FFF_H__ */

Other than including headers three things are happening in this file. Firstly the fff fakes are declared, secondly prototypes for exploding functions are declared and finally a list of all faked functions is created allowing operations to be done on all fakes in one statement.


#include "CmpEventMgrItf.fff.h"
DEFINE_FAKE_VALUE_FUNC2( RTS_RESULT, EventRegisterCallback , RTS_HANDLE , ICmpEventCallback * );
RTS_HANDLE EventOpen_explode( EVENTID  a, CMPID  b, RTS_RESULT * z ){ fff_explode("EventOpen"); return (RTS_HANDLE)0; }
RTS_RESULT EventRegisterCallback_explode( RTS_HANDLE  a, ICmpEventCallback * z ){ fff_explode("EventRegisterCallback"); return (RTS_RESULT)0; }

The fff fakes are defined along with definitions of the exploding fakes. Each exploding fake calls fff_explode, which is declared in a separate module allowing the way it explodes to be changed for a different testing tool..


#ifndef __FFF_EXPLODE_H__
#define __FFF_EXPLODE_H__
#define FFF_EXPLODE(a) a##_fake.custom_fake = a##_explode;
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C"
void fff_explode(const char * func);
#ifdef __cplusplus
#endif /* __FFF_EXPLODE_H__ */

The macro FFF_EXPLODE(a)  sets the custom_fake variable in an fff fake to point to the exploding fake.


#include "fff_explode.h"
#include "gtest/gtest.h"
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C"
void fff_explode(const char * func)
    FAIL()<<"Time to use fake for "<<func;
#ifdef __cplusplus

Keeping it fast

As I mentioned in the tools section the production code is being built in eclipse. I want to build the test code in eclipse as well, and I want everything to work seamlessly.

I added a second Build Configuration to the production code build, and made this build the unit tests. Having done this I want to run the tests every time I build (Or rather I want to run the tests after every code change, and have the code rebuilt if required). This requires an optional component to be installed in eclipse. Go to Help->Install New Software…, choose to Work with: –All Available Sites– and then under Programming Languages select C/C++ Unit Testing Support, click Next>, Next>, Finish and wait for the install to complete. Restart eclipse when prompted.

Now right click on your project in eclipse and selectRun As->Run Configurations... Create a new C/C++ Unit Test configuration. Use Search Project to find your Unit Test application, then on the C/C++ Testing tab, select Google Tests Runner.


When you run this configuration, it should force your tests to be built and then display the results graphically. Clicking on any failures will take you to the failing tests.



Particularly when bringing legacy code under test, I like to be able to visualise what is being tested and what isn’t. If you are using gcc then this becomes very easy.

Add these compiler flags to the compilation of the unit under test, and to the link line.

-fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage

Building and then running with profiling generates .gcda and .gcno files, these are specific to a particular build, so to ensure there are no mismatches in versions add to the link rule in the makefile an action to remove all .gcda and .gcno files from the object directory.

Now having run your tests look in the object directory in eclipse and you will see .gcda and .gcno files, double click one of them. In the dialog that pops up, ensure that your unit test executable is selected, and choose “Show coverage for the whole selected binary“.

For me the key is not the amount of code covered, much more, what has been covered by my tests. Each file can be inspected and it is very clear what was run by the tests and what wasn’t. This helps me decide if I have sufficient coverage before making changes. For example, the bars below show that my tests don’t cover all of the initialisation functions.


ExportFunctions is a standard function that is part of all components, the implementation shouldn’t change. The image below shows that the test suite invokes it, but there must be a return statement inside the EXPORT_STMT. Without code coverage I may never have known that some of the code wasn’t being exercised. Inspecting the code will then tell me if I need to add tests or not. This may be a trivial example but I hope it shows why inspecting test coverage helps you understand what is being tested. You can then make informed decisions about increasing the coverage, or accepting that you have gone far enough.


Once I’m happy with the coverage in an area I want to change I can start more traditional TDD development. Having started TDD, I tend not to use code coverage checks very often. Being rigorous about TDD tends to lead to 100% coverage, the main time I re-use the coverage checks is if I have refactored the UUT, it helps to show not just that the existing functionality still passes, but that I haven’t inadvertently added some untested functionality.

Summary and next steps

Investing the time to get the component under test has given me a re-useable test harness that allows me to extend and refactor the code with confidence. Future development can happen much faster than it would otherwise, as much of the functionality can be proven before taking the software anywhere near the embedded target.

Some components it is worth investing the time to create pre-canned functionality through custom_fakes. Consider these components


With no further work fff can be used to simulate failures, check the sizes being allocated and return fixed data structures on allocations. However in some tests we just want the memory allocation to work, so having a simple set of custom fakes that can be used to delegate these calls functional equivalents is worth while. Another useful extension can be to track allocation and freeing of memory, then in a test fixture setup tracking can be enabled, and in the teardown it can be checked.


This component provides string manipulation and other utility functions, in most cases it is preferable to have a working double than the standard fff fake. If you have a source code distribution of the runtime code I would attempt to link this with the tests.

SysTime and SysTimeRTC

One of the great advantages of Unit Testing in embedded systems is being able to run tests faster than realtime. Develop custom_fakes that allow you to take control of the progress of time.

Continuous Integration

Tests are only useful when they are run. Setting up a continuous integration system to build and test each component every time there is a change to the source code is the way to go.

Continuous Delivery

How far can you go towards continuous delivery? Using a combination of free tools, and the CODESYS Test Manager I have set up delivery pipelines that build the embedded code, run unit tests, performed static analysis, generated documentation, package up instrument firmware packages, build and test CODESYS libraries, automated version number management, create CODESYS packages, deploy the code into test systems and invoke automated testing (integration and system). If the tests all pass then the packages can be promoted to potential release candidates ready for final human validation as required.


Static analysis with Cppcheck in eclipse CDT and Jenkins

Static analysis tools look for a wide range of potential errors with code that compilers do not look for.    Cppcheck is a an open source static analysis tool, it is extensible and being actively developed. These are the sorts of errors that can be found

  • Out of bounds checking
  • Memory leaks checking
  • Detect possible null pointer dereferences
  • Check for uninitialized variables
  • Check for invalid usage of STL
  • Checking exception safety
  • Warn if obsolete or unsafe functions are used
  • Warn about unused or redundant code
  • Detect various suspicious code indicating bugs

This post walks through the process of installing Cppcheck and integrating it with eclipse CDT as well as on Jenkins.

Installing Cppcheck

Download and run the msi installer from I clicked on through accepting the defaults.
NOTE: I installed version 1.71, originally I tried the x64 version but had problems, the x86 version worked fine.
To understand how to run cppcheck refer to the manual.

Installing the eclipse plugin

In eclipse click Help->Eclipse Marketplace and search for Cppcheclipse.
Click Install then Confirm >
Accept the terms of the license and Finish. (I was prompted about installing unsigned software – I chose to continue). When prompted restart eclipse.
The next step is to configure the plugin. In Eclipse go to Window->Preferences->C/C++->cppcheclipse and set the path for the binary
Now review the Problems and Settings preferences, see below for the settings I use, I have all Problems enabled.
Now In the C/C++ perspective select the project that you want to check, right click and select cppcheck->Run cppcheck.
Any problems found are shown in the Problems tab
Double clicking on an issue takes you to the offending code (could this be a deliberate error?)



NOTE: I had repeated problems with errors: URI is not absolute
I worked around this by changing all include paths for the project to absolute paths. Not a real solution for me, for now I change the paths to analyse and then change back afterwards, or ignore the eclipse plugin and run on the command line.

Installing the Jenkins Plugin

Log in to Jenkins and go to Jenkins->Manage Jenkins->Mange Plugins, select the Available Plugins tab and Filter for cppcheck.
check the Install check box and select Install without restarting.
At this point you need to configure Jenkins to run the analysis and report on it, static analysis typically takes much longer than compilation for the same code. So in a real world application I would create a new Jenkins Job that checks out the code and runs the analysis. For my home project I’ll just extend the existing job.
Edit the node configuration for the build slave (Jenkins->Manage Jenkins->Manage Nodes) to add a label for cppcheck and also set an environment variable to say where cppcheck is installed.
Now in your Jenkins Job configuration – make it depend on the cppcheck label
Add a build step to run cppcheck, the example below is what I have, note the 2> which redirects stderr into a file, this is needed to capture the xml output.
Add a Post Build step to publish the cppcheck results (Once it is working play with the advanced options).
Now run a couple of builds and you should see graphing of the analysis results, be able to drill into the results down to the specific lines in files.

gcov code coverage in eclipse and Jenkins


This post gives step by step instructions for adding code coverage with gcov to a google test eclipse project that is built as part of a CI process on Jenkins. This post starts from the point of already having a project compiled by a gnu compiler, in an eclipse CDT project that is being build on Jenkins. These posts give the information required to get to this stage.

Using google test with CDT in eclipse
Integrating SVN, Trac and Jenkins with eclipse
Automating eclipse CDT build on Jenkins

To enable code coverage with gcov the project needs to be instrumented (build with flags that cause the raw coverage information to be saved when an executable runs). Having built the code with these flags enabled, and run the executable, both eclipse and Jenkins can be configured to view the coverage.

Enabling code coverage in the build

To determine what code coverage the unit tests have in the unit test project in eclipse: Right click on the project and select Properties->C/C++ Build->Settings->Tool Settings->GCC C++ Compiler->Debugging and check Generate gov information (-ftest-coverage -profile-arcs).

Still in the Properties->C/C++ Build->Settings->Tool Settings select MinGW C++ Linker->Miscellaneous and then in the Linker flags box add -ftest-coverage -fprofile-arcs.
Click OK to close the properties dialog. clean the project and the build, then look in the Debug folder and there should be a .gcno file for every source file.

Coverage Reports in eclipse

CDT includes support for gov, however this support relies on external tools that must be in the path. I tried to add them to the path in the eclipse project, I couldn’t get it to work, so I had to extend the Windows environment variable path. The path needs to include a path to addr2line, c++filt and nm, with my install of minGW I added c:mingwbin. Shutdown and restart eclipse so that it has access to the new path.
Now run your unit test application in eclipse, this will generate a .gcda for each source file. Now if you open any .gcda or .gcno file you should see
Click OK and the gov tab should be opened with coverage shown
NOTE: If you get an error here the most likely reason is that the gcov data is not all from a single binary version of the test application. The quick way to resolve this is to delete the Debug directory, rebuild and rerun the tests.
NOTE: When you double click on a file in the gov tab it opens the associated source file and should show line by line the coverage. Except in my scenario it doesn’t for linked folders. To see line by line coverage open the file of interest from the linked folders, open the file from under the unit test project, the coverage will show. This is being tracked as bug 447554 in the eclipse bugzilla. (Update 9 January 2016 – This is now fixed in updates-nightly-mars, Thank you Jeff)

Coverage in Jenkins

To get a coverage report added to the Jenkins job we have to convert the gcov output into a a format that can be understood by Jenkins (using gcovr) and then configure Jenkins with the cobertura plugin.


gcovr is a python application, so before it can be used you need python installed on the jenkins slave. Download and install active python from In my case I downloaded the ActivePython (x64). I accepted all defaults on the installer.
Open a command prompt and install gcovr
pypm -g install gcovr

I found it very hard to get the correct options on gcovr for the files I wanted in the output. I installed activepython and gcovr in the same way on my desktop machine, and experimented in the eclipse workspace. For me with an eclipse workspace at C:UsersDavidworkspace. Running the command below from C:UsersDavidworkspacehex2numSource I got the desired output. i.e. coverage for each source and include file being tested in hex2num.

python c:Python27Scriptsgcovr -r . –object-directory= ….hex2numUnitTestDebug -f .*\hex2num\Include\ -f .*\hex2num\Source\ 


Cobertura is a plugin for Jenkins that displays code coverage. To install the plugin login to Jenkins and go to Manage Jenkins->Mange Plugins->Available, select Cobertura Plugin, click Install without Restart.

For the Jenkins job you are configuring (in this example hex2num) go to the job configuration page, select Add Build Step->Execute Windows batch command. Add the following to go to the correct directory, I have added flags to generate xml output to a named file.

cd hex2numsource

python c:Python27Scriptsgcovr -r . –object-directory= ….hex2numUnitTestDebug -f .*\hex2num\Include\ -f .*\hex2num\Source\ -x -o ….gcovr.xml

Then select Add post-build action->Publish Cobertura Coverage Report, enter the path to the generated results file. Selecting Advanced allows a variety of options to be set.
Run a build and you should start to see code coverage reports, once a second build has been run you should start to see graphs. You can also drill in for more details.

Getting painted files to show in Cobertura

Although cobertura is displaying coverage there are two problems
  1. The package names don’t read well
  2. Painted source files don’t show as cobertura cannot find the source files

To resolve this I wrote a small python script to patch the paths in the gcovr.xml files. Save this source as

import xml.etree.cElementTree as ET
except ImportError:
import xml.etree.ElementTree as ET
import sys
paths = sys.argv[2:]

tree = ET.ElementTree(file=gcovrXmlFilename)
for packageElement,path in zip(tree.iter(tag=’package’),paths):
for classElement in packageElement.iterfind(‘classes/class’):
filename = classElement.get(‘filename’)
filename = filename.split(‘\’)[-1:][0]
filename = path+”/”+filename
classElement.set(‘filename’, filename)

In the jenkins job, change the windows batch command that runs gcovr so that it looks like this.

The script reads the file in the first argument (gcovr.xml), renames the first package(directory) to the next argument and sets the path for all classes (files) in the package, the second argument is processed similarly. More arguments can be added for additional packages.
In Jenkins you can then see nicely painted sources like this

Automating eclipse CDT build on Jenkins

In my previous posts I have shown how to setup Jenkins to work with SVN and trac running on the Raspberry PI. I have also shown how to configure eclipse to work with google test and how to configure eclipse to work with SVN and trac. This post covers how to automate the build of the eclipse projects under Jenkins and how automate running the unit tests.

Jenkins Configuration

Jenkins Slave Setup

First of all install all of the tools that you need for your build on a Jenkins slave, in my case eclipse CDT with a selection of plugins, and Mingw. Eclipse is not on the path by default, so I created a system environment variable ECLIPSE_DIR on the slave, with the path to where eclipse is installed. I also restarted the Jenkins slave service so that it had access to the new environment variable.
Decide on a label for these tools, I will use two, eclipse mingw. Login to Jenkins to add the labels to the slave with the tools installed. Go to Manage Jenkins->Manage Nodes, select the node and add the labels


Jenkins Job Configuration

Add the job to Jenkins, from the Jenkins home page select New Item, name the job and select Freestyle project, click OK. My example project is called Hex2Num, a simple utility I’ve written, it consists of two eclipse projects (a unit test project and the application), the unit tests are written using googletest, documentation is handled with doxygen, gcov is used for code coverage.
There is quite a bit of configuration, on the job page, so section by section

Name and Description

Fill in a meaningful description


If you are using trac and have integrated trac and Jenkins (see Integrating Trac and Jenkins) then fill in the URL to access trac.

Restricting where the build runs

Only the build to run on slaves that have the labels mingW and eclipse
Source Code Management

The source is stored in a single module in subversion, fill in the URL and any required credentials.


Click Add build step->Execute windows batch command, this command builds all of the projects in the workspace as DEBUG.


Click Add Post-Build action->Scan for compiler warnings and select gnu 4


Google Tests

Go back and add another  build step, Click Add build step->Execute windows batch command, this command executes the unit test application and generates an xml results file that can be interpreted as Unit results.
Add another post-build action, Click Add Post-Build action->Publish Unit test result report and enter the name of the result file.


After a few builds have been run two graphs will appear on the Jenkins page for the job.

Integrating SVN, trac and jenkins with eclipse CDT

I have previously posted on how to install trac, SVN and jenkins on the Raspberry Pi, and also on how to install (see the bottom of this post for related posts). When using Eclipse there are helpful plugins that tightly integrate all of these tools. This post covers the installation and configuration of these tools.
NOTE: I am installing in the Mars release of Eclipse CDT.

Subversion – Install Subclipse

There are two competing SVN integrations for Eclipse, subclipse and subversive. Both appear to be good, subclipse is supported by tigris (the organisation behind subversion), subversive is supported as an official Eclipse project. I have personally used subclipse for a long time and see no compelling reason to change.
If you use any other SVN client to work on the same checkout as Eclipse then they must use the same working copy format. See the subclipse download and install page for details. Because I also use tortoise SVN and am currently using version 1.8.x,  I need to use subclipse 1.10.x. The update site for this version is
In Eclipse go to Help->Install New Software…, in the Install dialog press the Add… button paste in the url for the update site that you require and enter a name.
Click OK and then select Subclipse and SVNKit as shown
click through accepting the license agreement and wait for the install to complete. I got a warning about unsigned content during the install and chose to accept the installation.
The built in help for subclipse is good, in Eclipse click Help->Help Contents and then find the topic Subclipse – Subversion Eclipse Plugin, the getting started section walks you through how to add a new project or how to access an existing one.

Trac and Jenkins install Mylyn Connectors

In Eclipse go to Help->Install New Software…, in the Install dialog in the Work with: drop down pick –All Available Sites– and then under Collaboration check Mylyn Builds Connector: Hudson/Jenkins and Mylyn Tasks Connector : Trac.
click through accepting the license agreement and wait for the install to complete.

Configuring the trac connector

Switch to the SVN Repository Exploring perspective in Eclipse, in the bottom left of the display you should see the Task Repositories view. In this view right click and Add Task Repository, or click on the  icon, select the Trac repository type and click Next.
NOTE: you may be prompted to setup a Secure Storage Password.
In the Add Task Repository… dialog, for the Server enter the URL that you use to browse to the trac repository, in the Label field put a short description, complete the User ID and Password that you use to log in to trac. Validate Settings and then Finish.
When you click Next you will be prompted to Add a new query, queries give you the ability to filter lists of trac tickets to those appropriate to you, a component, a release or whatever. The example below shows all of my open tickets.
To then see the results of the queries click Window->Show View->Other, then under Mylyn select Task List and click OK.
In the Task List it is possible to expand the queries to see lists of tickets, and the tickets can be opened and worked on. See below for an example.

Configuring the Jenkins Connector

Open the Mylyn Builds View (Click Window->Show View->Other…, and find Builds under Mylyn)
In the Builds view either click on Create a build server or on the icon. Select Hudson (supports Jenkins).
Fill in the Server:, Label:, User: and Password:, fields assuming you are using password authentication. For me the server URL is where is the IP address of my server. Check any build plans you are interested in , validate your settings and click finish.
From this builds view all build plans selected are visible, builds can be manually started, the build history is available and details for individual builds can be accessed (Such as warnings, test results and changes made).

Related Posts

Using Google Test with CDT in eclipse (Covers the installation of Eclipse CDT and MinGW)

Configuring a Jenkins Slave to build VS2013 projects


I have previously installed Jenkins, SVN and Trac on a single Raspberry Pi 2, with the intention of having a home Continuous Integration server (CI). I now want to get a visual studio 2013 solution built by Jenkins.

As a first project I have decided to get googletest (gtest) to build. As a precursor I have downloaded version 1.7.0 and added it to my local SVN repository, I then copied the msvc directory to msvc2013, open the solution in VS2013, allowed the onetime upgrade to happen, and then committed the new directory. If I build locally gtest builds with a couple of warnings (which is good because we can then check that jenkins sees the warnings).

I have a clean windows 8.1 PC (virtual machine actually) with Visual Studio 2013 Community Edition installed, and the latest version of Java installed (Version 8 update 51).

As a starting point I am following the Step by Step guide to setup master and slave in the Jenkins documentation.

Configuring the Jenkins Master

In a browser on the intended Jenkins slave, open up the Jenkins server main page (In my case, where is the IP address of my RPi). Select Manage Jenkins->Manage Nodes and then select New Node.
Enter a name for Jenkins to reference the slave as and select Dumb Slave, click OK. You are then shown the Configure page for the slave, these are the initial settings I choose, the Label is important, I use it later when setting up the build to identify this as a suitable slave to build on.

Save and then click on the newly added node and then click the Launch button.

I had to edit the Java security settings in the control panel on the PC to make a trusted site, the Jenkins slave then launched successfully
For now I want to launch the slave manually, so the configuration of master and slave is done.

Adding the required plugins to Jenkins

I browsed to Jenkins->Manage Jenkins->Manage Plugins. Before adding new plugins I decided to update all installed plugins to their latest version.
I then selected the Available tab and added the following plugins MSBuild, Log Parser, Warnings, Static Analysis Collector.
I browsed to Jenkins->Manage Jenkins->Configure System, scrolled down to MSBuild and added the following configuration.

Note: the location of MSBuild is specific to each version of Visual Studio, This plugin only offers one global path setting for each MSBuild  installation, so every build slave that you create a particular Visual Studio Installation on must have the same install path for MSBuild. I don’t think this is any great restriction.

Configuring the Build

In a browser go to Jenkins and select New Item, enter an item name (The name of your build, I use GoogleTestVS2013). You are then faced with the project configuration page, the exact content of this page depends on which plugins you have installed. The key sections are
Restrict the build to only run on slaves with vs2013 installed.
Link to the source code to checkout
Click Add build Step and select Build a Visual Studio project or solution using MSBuild
Click Add post-build action and select Scan for compiler warnings
For me that was sufficient, Jenkins can now checkout and build my visual studio project, after the build warnings are shown.