any software solution when the quantity of the testing engineers is far less than the quantity of the product engineer?

[jerryhethatday]

I am a testing engineer, and I now am maintaining a software platform which has the following features:

1. the platform provides very simple interface and abstraction to the user--a language which we call it marco language, like POWER ON means power on, and POWER VSET, NAME, 15V means that set the voltage of the signal "Name" to 15V, the connection between the name and the specific hardware detail(like the handle and the channel number) is configure by a ini file, during the initialize of the software, the ini will be read, and all the mapping details will be read into memory.

The reason why we use this structure is because that there are far more product engineers than testing engineers(200product guys and ony 11 tesing guys),  if we use teststand,  I think we will be busy writing the teststand sequence files. 

The problem of this software platform is that the marco instructions is very limited in functionality, no programming features like looping and variable. And also, the guy who write the software has resigned, it will be a diaster if we just add more features to it without understanding teh detailed structure from the scratch.

The NI salesman kept telling me that we should use teststand, But I think it will be way diffcult for the product engineers to write the sequence files. So, our man concern is that we testing engineer should only build a software structure that can decoupling the test and the product guy. 

Any help will be highly appreicated.

[CharlieRodway]

Will the product engineers be modifying existing sequences or writing new ones from scratch?

[~jiggawax~]

This is a very interesting scenario.  Here are a few things to consider:

1. Train the product engineers on TestStand.  If they can learn MARCO they should be able to learn TestStand.  The basics are easy.  If you have an Enterprise Agreement they can all watch the videos online.
2. Create custom steps and create a custom editor that only allows them to use the steps you designate.  Or change the type pallettes to only allow the steps you want them to use.  This way they are limited in scope and won't need to learn as much.
3. Split the product guys up into different groups.  Only allow a quarter of them to edit the sequence files.  Then the other product guys would need to go to the editors for their tests.  They would be faster and you would get a more quality product.
4. They won't spend more time in TestStand than they will on MARCO, plus they have unlimited support from the forums and NI.

A couple other things to consider in general:

1. TestStand is an off-the-shelf solution.  NI has poured millions of dollars into making it what it is.  It has become an industry standard.  It is easier to hire a TestStand developer than someone that knows MARCO.   So when your next MARCO expert leaves you are not stuck high and dry.
2. TestStand gives you a plethera of components that are already done for you (e.g. User Interface, Development Environment, Process Models, Plugins for reporting, User Management, etc...)  It would take an entire career to recreate all this at a proprietary level, not to mention the training you would need to create in house.  All you need to do to use TestStand is learn a few things.
3. I took a company from 79 developers to 14 with more throughput by using TestStand.  I can honestly say, if used correctly, it can dramatically make your team more efficient.  Just to clarify, we did not let go all of those developers, we moved them to different roles.  We were able to reuse more code with TestStand, hence the huge jump in efficiency.

I run a side consulting business and if you'd like to chat PM me your info.  I'd be willing to talk you through some concerns at no cost.  If nothing else it is good for me to network.

Hope this helps,

[j_dodek]

Hi

i  agree with Jiggs great explanations. Especially the unlimited support from the forums. To be honest my last phone call to NI Support is years back. I got all my knowlege from here. You can say this here is living knowlegebase.I am working with other tools on HIL simulation and they have a built in sequencers, too. But if you have questions you have to talk to vendor's support team and sometimes they would not understand you. Here you can "speak" with users with completly different views. And someone will understand you. I would put this consideration on a top level at decision matrix.

On HIL Simualtion i just made a interface to TestStand, viola no big deal.

I know its hard 200 against 11. What about writing a parser that convers Macro to TestStand. And introduce Testand slowly.

They will see benefits at first on reporting. Later they see that there is even an open ProcessModel. How Step, Sequences

and all that stuff is controled. In opionion this is the reason why TestStand is a industry standard at all.

Just a view from an other user

Juergen

[bienieck]

Another solution, but still similar to macros, is sequence generator based on excel sheet test specification. I believe there is even an example how to do this, installed with TesStand.

[Xuan.ZHENG]

maybe customer education for teststand is needed for the product managers and they should know how to get help from phone support.

[jerryhethatday]

Thanks for your reply. But could you tell me the name of the example, I searched the example dir and no one is match. Thanks

[bienieck]

I checked examples and I realized that there are no excel based examples (I had to see it somewhere else), but there is sequence builder example. Check this: http://zone.ni.com/reference/en-XX/help/370052M-01/tsexamples/infotopics/builder_tools/