NI TestStand Idea Exchange

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
User Kudos Count
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Allow Sequence Adapter to expand containers in the module tab

I think it would be a great idea to allow the sequence adapter to expand containers like the CVI and LabVIEW adapters do when you are editing the module for the step. 



See attachment.

~Will work for kudos and/or BBQ~
Trusted Enthusiast

I like it!


This would come in handy!

Active Participant

How would you support the idea of "do not check type" that is available for Sequence call step type parameters but not necessairly for those others?

Active Participant



You could ideally choose to pass in a container, or the individual components of the container.  If you chose to pass in the container, it wouldn't neccessariy check type.

Active Participant

This would enable us to use static calls to sequences as parameters and limits rather than relying on importing property object files. Want!


Also a "Want" from me!


Helps in debugging, need this feature.


Can't believe this isn't already implemented.  Seems like it should have been a straight forward natural progression.  Anybody know of a specific reason or feature that is preventing implementation?  TestStand is great at working with Labview to create custom container variables that match type definitions.  If you use the type defs on your code modules, then it is a seamless transition.  However, TS seems to be stopping short of letting us use them to their full ability.  Very frustrating.  Sequences would be much cleaner if this worked.  


Please implement!!




This would be very helpful in reducing unnecessary statement steps (or preexpressions) and local variables.

Not my tempo... AGAIN!