I returned for my second rotation on August 30, 1999. During this
rotation, I was assigned to work under Joe Cappezuto in the Integration
and Test team. The main task for me to accomplish was testing the
most recent product builds of Code Composer Studio and reporting any problems
or inconsistencies in behavior, as well as any suggestions for improvements,
to the product manager of that specific product release. After a
brief but thorough introduction to the methodologies and applications used
in testing, I began testing the latest builds of the TMS320C54x Code Composer
Studio product (as mentioned previously, a large software application that
enables code to be developed, built, and run on a DSP through either a
simulator or emulation technology that connects the DSP to a host PC via
one of its ports and a cable (known as a JTAG)). By the time I had
joined this product group, the release date was only a few weeks away,
and thus testing needed to be done quickly and efficiently. Everyone
on the product team, led by Tim Pasko, worked many hours to ensure the
stability of the product. With such a sizeable combined effort, the
team was able to release the product even earlier than anticipated.
Without any delay, I moved to my next task, working under Matt Bost on
the TMS470 Code Composer Studio release. Although the release date
of the product was two months after the end of my work rotation, all of
the team still worked hard to make the product as solid as possible.
To adequately test both of these products, a suitable level of knowledge
about the DSP or microprocessor for which the product was being made was
necessary. Otherwise, errors would not be properly understood, and
one would not have a deep enough comprehension to even know if the error
was valid or not. Thus, I learned a good amount about both of these
product lines through my testing work, as the testing done was much more
in depth than in any previous experiences.
The other main task I performed during this work rotation was using several
automation tools to determine which was the easiest to use and which best
fit the Integration and Test team needs. Automation tools enable
testing to be performed on a product without a user sitting at a computer
and working step-by-step through a given test. An individual
can start a test with the click of a button, walk away from the computer,
and return minutes or hours later, viewing a detailed report of any failures
which occurred in the product. The main tool which was evaluated
was Rational Robot, which TI eventually chose to use for its testing automation.
I used Rational Robot extensively to record, write, and perform tests,
through which I was able to understand in detail the workings of the tool,
and therefore help in determining the usefulness of the tool to the testing
team.
I enjoyed working on the Integration and Test team. It was a very
educational experience, as I was able to directly apply knowledge and coding
experience learned in the classroom when working with Rational Robot, which
uses a variant of Visual Basic for writing tests. Though I had never
worked with Visual Basic before, I learned the basics of the language and
applied my general coding knowledge through this work. I was also
able to learn even more about the work environment and structure of the
company through working closely with people on specific product teams.