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: 
crelf

Modify TestStand to be a static link to a particular instance VI via a Polymorphic VI in a LabVIEW action step

Status: New

See discussion here: http://forums.ni.com/t5/NI-TestStand/TestStand-and-LabVIEW-treat-polymorphics-with-instances-with/m-...

 

Say I have a LabVIEW Class, and that class contains a method that's a polymorphic VI, and that polymorphic has instances. If I set the instances' access scope to private, and the polymorphic to public, then I can force developers that use the class to use the polymorphic VI (and not call the instances directly). That's awesome. I like that.

 

but...

 

Say I'm building a TestStand API that uses a polymorphic and its instances as described above. I create a LabVIEW action step, with a Class Member Call call type, and I target my class. TestStand doesn't support polymorphic VIs, which means neither the polymorphic nor its instances show up in the Member Name list.

 

This means that, to support my LabVIEW users and my TestStand users, I need to create two separate APIs. The idea is to modify TestStand to allow for Polymorphic VI spacing between the LabVIEW action step type and the polymorphic member VIs.





Copyright © 2004-2020 Christopher G. Relf. Some Rights Reserved. This posting is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
1 Comment
Elaine_R.
Active Participant

I'd just like to see better polymophic support in TS in general. and this is certainly part of it.

 

currently I don't make my poly children 'protected' but I'd love to... even though TS can see mine, it doesn't make the sequences easier to write for users not comfortable with how Polymorphics work in LV.

 

we spend a great deal of time developing 'friendly' polymophic top level items for our user base and train them to find/use them...  but when they then try to migrate code into TestStand they often get confused that TS is requiring them to browse to a specific subVI  which happens to be hidden a few folders away & possibly with a different name from the VI they know and love.  I can appreciate that having TS understand how to render a Poly for selection/editing is probably an ordeal, but just like Enums, it'd be a massive usability boost for those of us in teams with non-expert developers putting their hands in the codebase  🙂