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 Authors
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
MimiKLM

Feature request: Passing and failing against multiple limits

Status: Declined

TomOrr0W,

 

Thanks for pointing that out - i misinterpreted this the first time i read through it.

 

There are a few workarounds that i think are easy enough. One i haven't seen mentioned here or the other thread is calling the step in a sub sequence with looping configured on the sequence call. You could pretty easily change the limits based off pass/fail.

 

Similar concepts have been solved in TSM, and could also be solved in a custom plugin:

Grading/Binning: http://zone.ni.com/reference/en-XX/help/373892H-01/tssemiconductor/binning/

PAT: http://zone.ni.com/reference/en-XX/help/373892H-01/tssemiconductor/partaveragetesting/

 

Hi,

 

I'd like to return to the idea posted by me on the forum here: http://forums.ni.com/t5/NI-TestStand/Concession/m-p/1458500/highlight/true#M31968

 

It would be very good if teststand would offer the native testing against multiple limits. Let say the test will pass if the measurement is less than 5 and it pass under concesion when is less than 7, otherwise its fail.

 

So, summarising TS shall have the ability to delinie not only one set of limits per measurement along with the different kinds of passes.

3 Comments
WireWeaver
Active Participant
Status changed to: Completed

TestStand supports the following comparison types:

https://zone.ni.com/reference/en-XX/help/370052AA-01/tsref/infotopics/pane_nl_limits/

 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/trentweaver
TomOrr0W
Member

@WireWeaver, This idea should probably be listed as declined or new rather than completed.

The request is not to have a more complex expression for determining pass/fail but to have a third state in addition to Pass/Fail (Pass with Concession) where it still passes the overall limits, but fails a set of stricter warning or engineering limits.  The example given requires the measurement to be <5 for an unqualified "Pass", >=7 for an unqualified "Fail", and between 5 and 7 for a qualified "Pass with Concession".  See the thread the OP linked to for more details (and some ways to make it work with TestStand's current result system).

WireWeaver
Active Participant
Status changed to: Declined

TomOrr0W,

 

Thanks for pointing that out - i misinterpreted this the first time i read through it.

 

There are a few workarounds that i think are easy enough. One i haven't seen mentioned here or the other thread is calling the step in a sub sequence with looping configured on the sequence call. You could pretty easily change the limits based off pass/fail.

 

Similar concepts have been solved in TSM, and could also be solved in a custom plugin:

Grading/Binning: http://zone.ni.com/reference/en-XX/help/373892H-01/tssemiconductor/binning/

PAT: http://zone.ni.com/reference/en-XX/help/373892H-01/tssemiconductor/partaveragetesting/

 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/trentweaver