NI TestStand Idea Exchange

Community Browser
About NI TestStand Idea Exchange

Do you have a feature idea for how to improve NI TestStand? Submit and vote on ideas now!

  1. Browse by label or search in the TestStand Idea Exchange to see if your idea has previously been submitted. If your idea exists sure to vote for the idea by giving it kudos to indicate your approval!
  2. If your idea has not been submitted click Post New Idea to submit a product idea. Be sure to submit a separate post for each idea. Note: the TestStand Idea Exchange is not the appropriate forum to submit technical support questions.
  3. Watch as the community gives your idea kudos and adds their input.
  4. As NI R&D considers the idea, they will change the idea status.
  5. Give kudos to other ideas that you would like to see implemented!

The TestStand R&D team is committed to reviewing every idea submitted via the TestStand Idea Exchange. However, we cannot guarantee the implementation of any TestStand Idea Exchange submission until further documented.

Top Kudoed Authors
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Post an idea
0 Kudos

Allow the configuration portion of steps that call DLLs to see mangled function names, such as those generated by many C++ compilers (@Initv, for instance).

0 Kudos

 

I've encountered on several occassions, customers who assign serial numbers / partnumbers during the test process who still wish to do on-the-fly recording.... and are disatisfied with the default behavior of the reporting because their header persists in showing the blanks etc.

 

While I understand that it's easier to build file paths / headers once, and then append the body content onto them, it would be especially elegant, if there was:

 

(a) a way for me to manually trigger (via a callback perhaps) a refresh of the entire header or

(b) if at the very least, the header section & file path were overwritten/updated once at the very end.

 

Since it seems to me that the header has to be re-written at least partially to account for the failure-chain logic, it wouldn't seem that much more work (or that much more inefficient) to just refresh the whole thing?

0 Kudos

Having multiple engineers working on code is an issue for me when a person writing an expression doesn't check for errors. I myself am sometimes a culprit of this. The error doesn't show up until Teststand trys to evaluate it, some code will not show errors if the sequence flow doesn't access the step with errors.

 

It sure would be nice to have a tool that checks for expression errors either in the whole sequence file or a called sequence.

0 Kudos

It would be nice to have the message popup be more generic so that it can be used in more situations. For example to notify the user that there is a wait in progress. It is currently not possible to remove the button from the Message popup.

0 Kudos

I'm bound to see backlash for this one but here goes!!

 

The idea exchange, forum and shipped examples are great for learning and resolving specific issues and requesting features and I use them a lot.  But as kind of a newbie what cool things can you actually do?  I'm talking about a different kind of idea exchange for the purpose of sharing what's possible or maybe how some API functions were used to create a particular feature.

 

Fire away !

 

0 Kudos

TESTSTAND is capable of interfacing so many devices & instrument to a UUT.

 

Incase of ATE(Automatic test equipment), where lot of resources are made available to test the UUT, not all the resources or instruments will be used through out the test for a particular UNIT. Hence there should be facility to select the resources required for particular test, which will be then only initialized & used.

 

For example a simple power device requires only POWER SUPPLY, LOAD & DMM. Where as a data acquisition system requires POWER SUPPLY, DIO & AIO cards & so on.

 

Thus one should only select the resources required for test & hence no need to have init function separately for each sequence. This may sound a bit complicated but It really helps for LARGE ATEs, where optimization is KEY. Same thing can be implemented for TERMINATING resources once test is done.

0 Kudos

I'm often traversing through many subsequences (both separate and contained), and I'd like a "back" button - just like the one in Requirements Gateway - so I can quickly move back through the list.  A "forward" button might be useful too I guess, but I'd be more keen on getting a "back" button first.

0 Kudos

There is often problems with cross-linking the wrong LabVIEW VI code modules. Why not automatically import VIs into TestStand from LabVIEW projects using the name of the LV project as a name extension for each VI in TestStand?

 

For example, if the name of the LV project is "Project 1.lvproj" and contains VIs named A.vi and B.VI, then these could easily be loaded into testStand as "A-Project 1.vi" and "B-Project 1.vi"?

 

 

Eugene