From 04:00 PM CDT – 08:00 PM CDT (09:00 PM UTC – 01:00 AM UTC) Tuesday, April 16, ni.com will undergo system upgrades that may result in temporary service interruption.

We appreciate your patience as we improve our online experience.

NI TestStand Idea Exchange

Community Browser
Top Authors
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Post an idea

Recently I am trying to customize process model and found somethig that may be useful for making fast process.

Here is the Idea.

Suppose I have ~20 sequence(Engine callback, Process model callback etc..). If i want to edit any one of this  sequence than I have to scroll down and select particular sequence. Moreover, sometime if two or three sequence has same initial name than I have to increase the length of sequence column and find sequence of my interest.

but what if teststand has ability that i just give initial character and teststand redirect selection to the sequence starting with same character(like in windows or Step Type in teststand)

Hi,

 

As in subject.

 

Sometimes the names of the variables are too long and it would be good to see them in full name. Right now they look pretty squeezed. If the developers could do the "maximise" operation it could help.

 

Capture3.PNG

 

 

 

 

Greetings,

 

The current behavior of the Batch Synchronization options "One Thread Only (first thread executes step, remaining threads skip)" and "Serial (one thread at a time)" is that the threads wait at that step until all threads have gotten to that point before it executes using the selected behavior. It essentially has a rendezvous built into the step. There are many times when I want the first thread that encounters that step to perform the action immediately (and then continue, with other threads skipping that step) without waiting for the other threads to also get to that point in the test.

 

For example, I may have three threads running in the Batch model and when the first one gets to a certain point in the test I want it to perform some action (log activity, turn something on, etc.) that I only want to be done once. I can use the "One Thread Only" option, but this causes the test to pause until all of the threads have reached that point before it performs the action of the step (once). Additionally, the remaining threads also pause at that step until the first thread completes the activity. So the undesirable delay is twofold: the first thread doesn't run the step until the other threads have also reached that point, and the other threads now wait until that activity is completed before continuing.

 

It would be great to have the option to select how I want this to behave. If the rendezvous could be selectable then it would provide the desired functionality. I'm sure custom coding could create this effect somehow, but I don't see a straightforward way to have only one thread run a step (and others skip) without waiting for the other threads to arrive or the remaining threads to wait until the first completes. The "Serial" Batch Synchronization option can be implemented in a different way without major effort (using locks, rendezvous, etc.), but the "One Thread Only" with selectable rendezvous option is what is truly missing (and it may make sense to have it available for both).

Currently in TestStand, for a Numeric Limit Test, the "Numeric Format" applies to both the measurement and the test limits.  I would like to be able to have different numeric formats for the test limits and the measurement.  For example, I might want my limits to be %.2f (e.g. 1.23-2.34) and my measurement to be %.3f (e.g. 1.345) so that I can demonstrate a certain measurement accuracy.

 

Pulido Technologies LLC

As in subject:

 

Now if I put the label inside Selrct-Case-End block the sequence won't run:

 

ccccccbtulelgndllulfjkgfejhiirfeevierbgltevu.PNG

 

Sometimes, you have a lot of cases and the labels would be very useful do describe the cases.

 

I think they shall be excluded from the the rule that "Only Case blocks can be nested in Select blocks".

This is the existing function:

returnvalue = AllOf(True,False,True)

 

 

But I need often this:

my_boolarray = {True,False,True}

returnvalue = AllOf(my_boolarray)

> Error: Expected Boolean, found Array of Booleans

It is very common to use a typedef as input or output terminal for any VI. If such VI is used in TestStand either as custom step or in a sequence, then teststand requires a relink of step/sequence whenever the typedef values are modified.

 

Teststand need to resolve this differences automatically, rather than expecting user to relink sequences.

TS does not allow the ability to rename steps that are of the Flow Control type (i.e. If, Else, For, While, etc.). In a report, these generic names are then used, making it very difficult to know what condition the step was evaluating to determine whether to enter or continue within the flow control block. A step name would normally give the reader of a report some indication as to what is being tested or reported on. This is not the case for these step types.

 

For example, an "If" step that is determining whether a condition is met (and whether to enter into the subsequent steps within the flow control block) simply shows up in the report as:

Step Status Measurement Units Limits
Low Limit High Limit Comparison Type
If {True}  Done        

 

There is no indication of what it evaluated to determine it was True, meaning someone reading the report has no idea what the purpose of the step is. As designer of the test, I can look through the sequence to determine exactly what it was doing, but a report is a useful tool to be able to show to someone not familiar with the test and allow them to be able to see what happened. A report gives the reader the history of the test. Without knowing what a step is for, a lot of the "story" being told by the report is either lost or becomes much harder to follow.

 

I would assume there is a reason as to why these step types are not able to be renamed, but I'm not familiar with what that would be. It would be nice to be able to modify, or at least add to, the step name so that the report gives some indication of what it was that it evaluated. If that is not possible, there should be a simple way to include the parameter/expression being evaluated with the step name in the report. This can be somewhat accomplished using other methods, such as the Additional Results of the Properties tab, but this is not intuitive or clean and I would think this behavior should actually be default, not something the user has to manually create and enable.

 

Regards,

I've got a bunch of variables in StationGlobals.  Many of them are types.  I want to edit the type of one of the variables to add a parameter.

 

Workflow -- 

Open StationGlobals pane by clicking the "world" icon along the top.

Find the variable instance.  I right click on the variable instance, and this is the listing I get

Darn.  I was hoping to be automatically linked to the type definition.

AddViewToSGviewer.png

 

 

Frustrated, I was convinced I had right clicked on instances of types before and been able to directly link to the type definition for that variable.  So I go to my empty dummy sequence file, and try doing the same thing from the variables pane of "Sequence File 1"

 

viewexistsinSFview.png

 

Ah Ha!!! that's what I wanted.

 

So how about this -- why don't we just take this "Right click -> view -> type definition" ability that exists in the variables view, and get that feature added to the station globals view, kinda like this:

 

addedView.png

 

 

Imagine this as a scenario:

you write some code to work with the standard out-of-the-box process model. 

Then you need to later run this code using a different process model (or changes are made to whatever process model you are using).  With this new process model / changes to your existing process model you happen to have a new callback sequence, and that callback sequence happens to be named exactly the same as some other sequence in your client sequence file (that you wrote with no intention of it being a callback override). 

Now, when you try to run your client sequence file, you will either get errors because the callback parameters do not match up (for this random sequence that wasn't supposed to be a callback override).

 

Granted this can be avoided by having good naming conventions for sequences in your client sequence file and any process model callbacks you add, but sometimes you are not in control of one or either of those.

 

I suggest adding a property of a sequence that flags it as "not available to be used as a callback override" -- this way you can configure all your "never intended to be a callback override" client sequence file sequences as such, and you won't end up in this trap. 

 

Something like this:

nocallbackoverride.png

  • Have a spec that declares the name of the measurements signal?- Drag-n-Drop from the doc to the Limits>Measurement name field. no need to copy, select, enter field, paste
  • Know what module you want for the step? -Drag-n-Drop from Workspace or Explorer window to Module Path. I browsed there allready and can start slinging modules in
  • Have a list of Parameter Values in a file? -Drag-n-Drop into the value field. No need to retype and we know the data type allready- add the "" around string litterals (And why am I trying to get in between them anyhow pray-tell? TestStand can put the back-it put em there once allreadySmiley Wink 
  • Know what parameter or operation you want in the Expression?- Drag-Drop into the expression field or the expression builder.
  • Duplicating Limits or selecting a comparison? Drag-n-Drop into TestStand

Drag-n-Drop

Drag-n-Drop

Drag-n-Drop

Drag-n-Drop

Drag-n-Drop

Drag-n-Drop.....Sooooooo easy

If you double click a LabVIEW step in TestStand, currently it will sometimes enable you to edit the name of the step.  I think it would be better to have a double click open the LabVIEW VI that is called by the step as that feels more natural then right clicking the step and selecting edit code.

 

 

Adding XML file support to Property Loader will be easily to generate custom editor for final customer of TS sequence.

 

Paolo

Adding FOR function i.e. you could manipulate easily array in the expression, instead to include addition sw code.

 

 

Paolo

The current interface for DLLs does not nicely accommodate C++ classes.  For instance, there is no inherent mechanism for passing in and out of DLL calls the reference to an instance of a class.

The Additional Results Step property is a great way to add customized results to the TestStand report for a particular step without much effort required.  However, there should be an equally simple way to add additional results too all of the steps in a sequence.  The current options are all lacking:

 

  1. Create a SequenceFilePostStep engine callback to manually append results to the result list - this feels hacky
  2. Add additional results to each step - this is tedious
  3. Create custom step types - this is also tedious, as a new step type would be required for each step

I think there should be an additional results option available in either the report options or in the sequence file properties window or the report options window.  Configuring the results here would be identical to adding the additional result to every step in the sequence.

 

Potential implementation of button on report options window:

tsgar.png

 

Additional results button launches a dialog:

ardialog.png

Professional Development package should include source code control (SCC) and Requirements Gateway right out of the box.

 

I know that bundled SCC was a problem in the past that NI wants to avoid, but I feel that a "Professional" development system isn't very professional without it and Requirements Gateway. However, It is very difficult and painful for me to get separate funds approved for important items that really needs to be already there right out of the box.

 

I already use free SVN, but TestStand does not recognize it, so it is not "integrated".

 

 

Eugene

Would be great to have Local of type Image. Right now image is saved and retirved for analysis or convert to array to use in other steps.

 

Something similar like the idea ;

 

http://forums.ni.com/t5/NI-TestStand-Idea-Exchange/Support-for-Creation-of-Enumerated-Type-Variables/idi-p/1256014

Under TestStand Sequence Editor, a lot of IVI Class are not encapsulated in Steps Type.

It should be interesting to have IVI Step Type because the development and the maintains of a Hardware Abstraction Layer is complex and requires a lot of time.

Under Labview all IVI class are presents. Why not in TestStand?

 

 

 IVI2.png

 Xavier

Test Architect - Alstom Transport

 

Hi,

 

As in the subject.

 

In the Call sequence step please make the list of sub-sequences to call (combo box) sortable.

 

Now, the list is not sorted an it is very difficult to find the sequence we need to call.

 

Cheers,

 

K.