I suggest being able to group steps in a sequence:
Steps that are grouped should in interactive mode be forced to be handled together, e.g. "Run selected steps" would always select all the steps in the group. This way you could re-use certain steps multiple times down the sequence without allowing such steps to be executed by themselves (or the opposite, make sure certain steps were never executed without surrounding safeguards).
Today we'd usually enclose such must-work-together steps inside sub-sequences, but that solution does not safeguard against selecting a single step within that sub-sequence for execution by itself, and sometimes putting steps in a sub-sequence is non-optimal (one such case is when you have disabled tracing into subsequences, but this particular set of steps you'd like to have tracing on - I know there are ways to go about this, but these are cumbersome and non-trivial to spot when editing the sequence).
I wouldn't add any extra configuration options to a group, it should simply be a group/ungroup thing - all settings still being on a per step basis.
The use cases for a group could be expanded into making it easier to select a co-working set of steps for copying and pasting, it would be a good way to document co-working steps and so on.
One of the only paths (if not the only path) that can't be specified by expression in TestStand is the substep module in a custom test step. A substep module must currently be statically defined.
For advanced architectures it would be nice to be able to define substeps by expressions instead of statically (in one project this was a showstopper to the flexible architecture we attempted to implement).
I'd prefer TestStand worked the same way as LabVIEW, such that it'd allow multiple versions open at the same time. Other than probably some stuff internal to the TestStand architecture* I don't see any reason for the version selector.
* It's probably due to the ActiveX API having the same server and method names between versions, but that can be worked around if necessary.
As NI has acknowledged (here, here) for more than 5 years, the Build .sql File button creates schemas with errors. This is even true for the default schemas in the left of the dialog. Would be great if NI would go ahead and correct this. BTW - to create default tables in the meantime, a developer should use a SQL file located here: <TestStand>\Components\Models\TestStandModels\Data
I'd like to see a "No Comparison" comparison type added to the String Value Test.
Currently there are only two options for comparison type on the String Value Test: "CaseSensitive" and "IgnoreCase". I have often wished there was a "No Comparison" option similar to what is available for the Numeric Limit Test. Sometimes you want to pass a string to the test report in the result field that neither passes nor fails the test.
When you select the "Unlod modules" in the module, you have no result message: user can't know if modules were really unloaded or not.
You can see the situation with a sequence that load a .DLL extension is opened and has run: if you want to delete (or update) the DLL file windows prevent you to do. Make Unload, Windows sometimes still prevent you.
I've not found the real conditions to reproduce the situation but I think you should improve the user information with that Unload Modules function to shos, as ex, which modules have been really unloaded and which ones not.
Sometimes I can find difficult to access arrays using indexes. Although straightforward it can be difficult to maintain in certain situations, like calibration data for a lot of frequencies. Lets imagine you have a table of sixty calibration factors per frequency and forty frequencies, generated by third party software to the excel file.
It would improve accessibility if we could name columns and rows and use their names instead/along with the indexes.
We can access the array data like AnArray now. In this idea we could access the data like that: AnArray["63dB”]["125MHz"].
When we would like to import the data using property loader it would be easier to access the data with defined names of colums and rows rather than indexes. (data binding)
Expose the sequence file version number to be visible in the file properties. (select file in windows explorer -> right click -> properties -> details).
When for example we do right click -> properties -> details tab on .dll assembly we see:
When we do the same on the .seq file we see:
Exposing sequence file version number can simplyfy checking version file number. Now to chek it we have to open sequence file in editor.
Firstly, I've discussed the topic how to programatically disable assesing results here.
I've realised there is no such option. Only one alternative is to swich the comparison type to LOG going thru the steps one-by -one.
It would be good to have the override method not to compare ALLresults in the sequence (during execution).
Like described in this article I have to build Custom Data Types manually to pass enum strings to TestStand.
It would be very nice if I could import LabVIEW Enum TypeDefs into Teststand as Custom Data Types. This way I could save a lot of time.
In the Sequences sub-window in the sequence editor along with the Sequence Comment and Requirement columns it would be good if we have another one with the number saying how many callers that sequence has.
In this days I have been developing some applications in LabWindows/CVI and I noticed one tool that could help in TestStand. Including an Splitter Bar in the Steps Pane would facilitate building complex sequences with many steps inside.
It could look like this:
When I get called to look at an issue that has occurred with a test, the account logged into TestStand is typically a restricted user (i.e. Operator). Since the Operator account has very limited options, in order to really do much immediate troubleshooting I need to stop the test and re-run it in the Administrator account. At best this is inconvenient and inefficient if the spot the error occurred is late in the test. However, it is extremely frustrating when it's an intermittent run-time error and I can't do any real-time debug because Operator is logged in. The only real alternative I can think of (when the problem is intermittent) is to leave it logged in as Administrator so I can debug whenever it happens to occur. This is not really an acceptable practice in most cases.
It would be fantastic if there were an override that let's an Administrator provide the proper credentials to perform the desired task that would normally be off-limits to the Operator. The basic premise of this suggestion is similar to the functionality within Windows; if you try to connect to a secured location or perform a task that requires administrator privileges, a dialog box pops up asking you to enter authorized credentials.
I run into many situations where I wish this feature was present. The issue is not always within TestStand (could be a database connection issue, etc.), but it is TestStand that throws the error and in Operator mode the only option is "Run Cleanup". Significant time, effort, frustration, and efficiency could be saved if I could simply enter my credentials as an administrator to perform the tasks I need to do.
On an unrelated side note, I find it humorous that "TestStand" is considered a misspelled word when using the forum spell checker.
Exactly as in subject.
I thought that it will be good if the developers could collapse blocks of code which are in between of the Flow Control or/and Synchronisation step types.
I think about the mechanism we know already from TestStand which hides block of code: i.e. Setup, Main, Cleanup section in the sequence, or it can hide variables. It is a little "+" and little"-" to expand the content of the type of variables.
The types of steps I think of were mainly types from Flow Control and some types from Synchronisation. It would be good if for example we could collapse If-Else-ElseIf-End, Select-End, Case-End, While-End, DoWhile-End, etc statements
I think this functionality could improve the readability of the sequence, and helps the developers to have a better view on the whole sequence.
I find myself creating arrays alot and I usually have the array already made in excel or note pad or another type of file in which the list might be around 20 or more entries. Now in the past I've come up with a simple way to import the arrayed data from a file, but however i don't believe everyone is doing this and generally I don't need the file in which gets imported (usually a simpler version of the master). So i suggest could we add the support to copy from excel or from notepad and paste special into an array.
This idea might not be the best, fastest, or easiest way to import arrays from other programs, but the idea would be to find an easy way to import arrays.
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.