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

[crelf]

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.

[Elaine_R.]

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  🙂

[Parker123456789]

Has there been any developments on this?