Embedded Perspectives
Razorcat
27 articles tagged with Razorcat.
Test Case Design with the Classification Tree Method: Deriving Unit Tests You Can Defend in an Audit
Ad-hoc test cases can be perfectly good tests and still fail an audit, because nothing on file records why that particular set was sufficient. The Classification Tree Method derives test cases from the input space instead: identify the test-relevant aspects as classifications, partition each into equivalence classes, then combine leaf classes in a combination table. Razorcat implements CTM in the Classification Tree Editor, available integrated into TESSY or standalone. GSAS Micro Systems is the authorized Razorcat engineering partner for India, the UAE and Sri Lanka.
Fault Injection and Robustness Testing for Embedded Software: What ISO 26262, IEC 61508 and DO-178C Actually Ask For
Every safety-related unit contains code that correct inputs never execute: range checks, error returns, timeouts, recovery paths. The functional safety standards require that code to be verified, and they are explicit about how. ISO 26262-6 lists fault injection test as a method for both software unit verification and software integration verification; IEC 61508-3 recommends defensive programming from SIL 2 upward and then concedes that defensive code is exactly what stops teams reaching 100 percent structural coverage. This guide separates robustness testing from fault injection, maps each to the obligation that asks for it, and shows how Razorcat implements automated fault injection in TESSY without leaving instrumentation in production code.
How to Evaluate a Unit Testing Tool for Embedded Software: A Buyer's Framework for Indian Teams
Unit test tool evaluations rarely fail on features. They fail because the tool cannot drive the compiler and debugger the project is already committed to, or because the evidence it produces sits outside the scope of the certificate the assessor asks for. This is a buyer-side framework: six questions, what a credible answer looks like in vendor documentation, and a four-week pilot that measures the answers instead of accepting them.
Is 100% Code Coverage Enough? Statement, Branch, MC/DC and MCC, and What Each One Proves
No. A coverage percentage records which code your tests executed, not whether your tests would notice if that code were wrong. This guide defines statement, branch, decision, condition/decision, MC/DC and multiple condition coverage precisely, sets out what 100% of each does and does not prove, shows what ISO 26262, IEC 61508 and DO-178 ask for alongside coverage, and explains the three things to add: requirements traceability, fault-based testing and robustness cases.
Automated Mutation Testing for Embedded C: The Question MC/DC Coverage Cannot Answer
Structural coverage tells you a line was executed. It does not tell you that a defect in that line would have been caught. Mutation testing closes that gap by seeding small faults into the code, re-running the suite, and counting how many the suite kills. This guide covers mutation operators, the mutation score, the equivalent-mutant problem and cost control, and where seeded faults already sit inside IEC 61508-3. GSAS Micro Systems is the authorized Razorcat engineering partner for India, the UAE and Sri Lanka.
Test Case Quality in Embedded Unit Testing: Why Test Counts and Coverage Are Weak Proxies
Counting test cases and reporting a coverage percentage tells you what your tests touched, not what they would have caught. NASA's tutorial on modified condition/decision coverage puts it directly: coverage is a measure, not a method or a test. A good unit test case traces to a requirement, carries an expected result predicted from the specification, draws its inputs from equivalence classes and boundary values, and stays independent of how the code happens to be written. This guide sets out those four properties, shows how coverage-adequate suites still miss defects, and maps them to ISO 26262 Part 6, DO-178C and IEC 61508 expectations for requirements-based testing.
From Evaluation Licence to Production Licence: How Embedded Unit Test Tool Licensing Actually Works in India
A unit test tool licence is not paperwork at the end of an evaluation, it is a project constraint. Razorcat's own License Management Guide documents the whole arc for TESSY: an evaluation key issued against one host Id and delivered the next working day, a Floating License Server reached over a single TCP port, offline checkouts capped at 3 days by default and 30 as the built-in maximum that cannot be given back, access control lists and usage logging for seat planning, and a separate Continuous Integration licence that the TESSY IDE cannot use. This guide walks that arc and then the part no vendor manual covers: getting the purchase order through GeM, SAP Ariba, Coupa or TReDS.
Unit Testing Fundamentals for Embedded C and C++: Units, Interfaces, Test Drivers, Stubs and What the Safety Standards Demand
In C a unit is a single function. In C++ it is a method, and a method cannot be called without an object. Everything else in unit testing follows from that: the interface is what the unit reads and what it writes, a test driver supplies the startup code and the call, and stubs replace the units around it so the result depends on the unit alone. Razorcat's published TESSY documentation, IEC 61508-3 and the airworthiness authorities all describe the same discipline, and the functional safety standards write it as normative text rather than advice.
The Complete AUTOSAR Verification Chain: AUTOSAR C++14 Static Analysis with Helix QAC, SWC and RTE Testing with TESSY 6
AUTOSAR software component code carries two separate proof burdens: coding-standard compliance across every execution path, and correct runtime behaviour through the RTE. Static analysis and dynamic testing answer different audit questions, so most ISO 26262 evidence packages need both. This guide walks the chain end to end: AUTOSAR C++14 and MISRA analysis with Perforce Helix QAC or Klocwork, then ARXML-driven SWC and RTE testing in Razorcat TESSY 6, then coverage evidence. GSAS Micro Systems is the India engineering partner for both Perforce and Razorcat.
Shift-Left for Safety-Critical Code: Perforce QAC Static Analysis + Razorcat TESSY Dynamic Testing for MISRA, IEC 62304 and FDA Compliance in India
Run Perforce QAC static analysis first to enforce MISRA and clean the code, then Razorcat TESSY for dynamic unit testing and MC/DC coverage. Together they form a complete shift-left toolchain for IEC 62304 medical-device and FDA-regulated software, both from one authorized engineering partner in India, GSAS Micro Systems.
From Manual to Automated: Why Indian Automotive Tier-1s Are Adopting TESSY for Unit Testing
How Indian automotive Tier-1 suppliers are transitioning from manual unit testing to automated tools like Razorcat TESSY, driven by ISO 26262 requirements, OEM audit expectations, and the scaling demands of AUTOSAR-based multi-platform ECU development.
ISO 26262 Part 6 Unit Testing Requirements: A Practical Checklist Mapped to TESSY Capabilities
ISO 26262 Part 6 governs software unit design and implementation.
SEGGER and Razorcat Partnership: What It Means for Indian Embedded Teams
The SEGGER and Razorcat partnership brings together SEGGER Embedded Studio, J-Link debug probes, and TESSY unit testing, creating an integrated embedded development and verification workflow available in India through GSAS.
TESSY 5.x: Test Cockpit, Code Access, Hyper Coverage, and Variant Management
What's new in Razorcat TESSY 5.x, the Test Cockpit for project-wide oversight, Code Access for runtime variable inspection, Hyper Coverage for MC/DC gap analysis, and variant management for multi-configuration testing.
TESSY + Arm Keil MDK: Compile with AC6, Test with TESSY, Full Cortex-M Coverage
How to integrate Razorcat TESSY with Arm Keil MDK for automated unit testing of Cortex-M firmware, using Arm Compiler 6 for compilation, TESSY for MC/DC coverage, and a complete CI/CD workflow.
TESSY on Infineon AURIX TC3xx: Unit Testing Safety-Critical Motor Control and Powertrain Firmware
How Razorcat TESSY supports unit testing on Infineon AURIX TC3xx, TriCore compilation with TASKING/HighTec, on-target execution via J-Link, MC/DC coverage for ASIL D powertrain ECUs, and AUTOSAR SWC testing.
Getting Started with TESSY: Install, Import C Module, First Test Case, Coverage Report in 15 Minutes
A step-by-step tutorial for getting started with Razorcat TESSY, installing the tool, importing a C module, creating your first test case, running it, and viewing the coverage report. Covers the core workflow in 15 minutes.
MC/DC Coverage Explained: What It Is, Why You Need It, and How TESSY Achieves 100%
MC/DC stands for Modified Condition/Decision Coverage, the structural coverage metric that requires every atomic condition in a compound decision to be shown by test to independently change the decision outcome.
TESSY + Helix QAC: MISRA Static Analysis + MC/DC Dynamic Testing for Complete ISO 26262 Verification
ISO 26262 Part 6 does not ask for a choice between static analysis and dynamic testing.
TESSY + SEGGER J-Link: Debug-Assisted On-Target Unit Testing for Embedded Safety Projects
How Razorcat TESSY uses SEGGER J-Link debug probes for on-target unit test execution, downloading test harnesses to the microcontroller, collecting coverage data through the debug channel, and achieving MC/DC coverage on real hardware.
TESSY Unit Testing for Embedded C/C++: MC/DC Coverage, ISO 26262 Qualification, and CI/CD Integration
Unit testing embedded software is fundamentally different from unit testing a web application or a desktop service.
Why Choose TESSY over Cantata and Polyspace: Tool-Qualified MC/DC, TriCore Support, and AUTOSAR SWC Testing
Understanding when Razorcat TESSY is the better choice over QA Systems Cantata and MathWorks Polyspace, tool-qualified MC/DC coverage, Infineon TriCore target support, and AUTOSAR SWC unit testing.
TESSY vs LDRA TBrun: Embedded Unit Testing Coverage, Certification Evidence, and Audit-Readiness
Comparing Razorcat TESSY and LDRA TBrun for embedded C/C++ unit testing, coverage metrics, target hardware support, certification evidence generation, and audit-readiness for ISO 26262 and DO-178C projects.
TESSY vs Parasoft C/C++test: Embedded Unit Testing Tool Comparison for Safety-Critical Projects
A fair technical comparison of Razorcat TESSY and Parasoft C/C++test for embedded unit testing, covering MC/DC coverage, AUTOSAR SWC testing, CI/CD integration, Classification Tree Method, and ISO 26262 qualification.
TESSY vs VectorCAST: Stub Generation, Test Data, Coverage Depth, and AUTOSAR Workflows Compared
An in-depth comparison of Razorcat TESSY and Vector VectorCAST focusing on automatic stub generation, test data editing, coverage depth, CI/CD pipeline integration, and AUTOSAR SWC testing workflows.
TESSY vs VectorCAST: Choosing the Right Embedded Unit Testing Tool
A technical comparison of Razorcat TESSY and Vector VectorCAST for embedded C/C++ unit testing, covering code coverage metrics, AUTOSAR testing workflows, target hardware support, CI/CD integration, and safety standard qualification.
Unit Testing for India's Two-Wheeler EV Industry: ISO 26262 ASIL for Motor Controller and Inverter Firmware
India's two-wheeler electric vehicle market is entering a new phase.
Explore more topics