NI TestStand Idea Exchange

Top Authors

User

Kudos

Post an idea

I distribute my application which needs end user to register the teststand base deployment license. None of the end user of my application are interested in what NI software’s were used or in any NI hardware they are the end user who just want to use the application. So they end up using the Eval version for some days then complain that they cannot use the application any longer.

They are not interested in creating a NI profile & NI does not give any option to register the base deployment license without NI profile, so I have to go on their system and register the product using my profile.

View All (4)

Two Screen Mode

Hi,

As in subject: add the possibility to define the datatypes described in .net assemblies.

Now developers, when they create veriables, can choose from between number, string, boolean, object reference and cointainers and arrays of these as well as from between DatabaseColumnValue, DatabesePropery Mapping, Error, Path, Expression, NI_LimitMeasurement, NI_MSgBoxFontData, NI_LV_DeployLibraryItem, NI_TDMSReference, IVI and LabVIEWAnalogWaveform, LabVIEWDigitalWaveform, LabVIEWDigitalData, LabVIEWDynamicData, LabVIEWClusterArray,LabVIEWIOControl.

These two groups of data types are called Custom Data Types ( number, string, boolean, object reference) and Standard Data Types (rest of them).

I'd like to vote the .net types of data which are defined in .net assemblies were accessible from Standard Data Types menu along the LabVIEW datatypes.

View All (5)

Hi,

I'd like to propose a new feature for consideration. I'm missing the feature using which I could measure how long it takes to execute the freely chosen block of steps. To do this the new step would be needed.

Let say the step type name would be: "Time elapsed".

User would be able to specify the name for every instance of the step used, in the way as we can use the names in Rendezvous instances. And exactly as it is done in the rendezvous step type it would be some operations associated with that step type.

1. First call of "Time elapsed" step type would be called wit the operation: Create. The one obligatory argument would be the name.

2. Every other call of this step type with reference to the same name, apart from the last one, would be optional. The operation name this time would be Lap Time this time. The step would return the amount of time has gone from either the Create operation or the previous Lap Time operation.

3. And the last call of this step type with reference to the same name should be invoke with the operation called Finish for example, and it would return the time has passed from the first call of the step (with operation Create).

User would be able to create a lot of time elapsed type gauges, distinguish by their names.

This functionality would allow to measure the speed of the sequence during execution.

Example (sudo code):

TimeElapsed.Create("test01") //somewhere in the sequence

...

TimeElapsed.LapTime("test01") //somewhere in the sub-sequence

...

TimeElapsed.LapTime("test01") //somewhere in the sequence

...

TimeElapsed.Finish("test01") //somewhere in the sub-sequence

Values returned respectively could be:

32s

35s

107s

Kamil

View All (5)

Implement step grouping

Hi,

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.

Cheers,

Steen

View All (5)

When deploying from a workspace file, TestStand analyses the VIs it has to include in the deployment package. However, when working with plug-in classes, TestStand will add the parent of a plug-in class, but not its children. Possibly because these are not directly used (they are included at runtime), and thus not recognised during analysis.

I would like to see that TestStand recognises a parent class it includes in the deployment, and then:

includes all its child classes that are in the same project file;
asks to include possible child classes that are not in the project file.

In every TS step we have the looping feature. I find it very elegant feature which allows us to save implementing full loops for singular steps.

I wonder if some statistical information to the looping feature can be added to the looping feature.

We could image that there is a step with the i.e. LV module which is responsible for acquiring one sample of data. Let say the sampled signal is noisy. It would be fantastic if we can use this singular step which acquire singular sample and the looping feature of the TS step to get multiple samples and to have a statistic the samples taken. The statistic could be:

--averaging

--mediana

--standard deviation

--etc...

View All (5)

Now, if the number is exactly in between if two integers, TS rounding function uses bankers rounding method as a tie-breaking rule. Although bankers rounding tie-breaking rule generally secures equal statistical error distribution, in case of a need of rounding numbers with only one decimal place this tie-breaking rule produces output which could be different than - let say a natural - expectation.

For example if we have a group of numbers like below:

{-2.0, -1.5, -1.0, -0.5, +0.0, +0.5, +1.0, +1.5, +2.0}

the basic expectation is to have them rounded like that (round-half-up):

{-2.0, -1.0, -1.0, +0.0, +0.0, +1.0, +1.0, +2.0, +2.0}

However, using banker-rounding method instead of the rounding as above we see:

{-2.0, -2.0, -1.0, +0.0, +0.0, +0.0, +1.0, +2.0, +2.0}

I think round half up tie-breaking method option should be added for developers to use.

BTW: (the + and - signs and .0 notation are used just to keep the numbers to be easy to compare)

View All (6)

The TestStand Offline Results Processing utility is an external application built on top of the TestStand engine. The tool takes TSR files created by a TestStand Execution, and processes them either on an external computer or at another time on the same computer. The idea I'd like to propose is to have the tool follow the TestStand Model plug-in architecture. Currently, it is a standalone application that does not have any connection to the process model or the model plug-ins sequence other than where the TSR file is placed. It would be helpful if one could get and set profiles, inboxes and outboxes and start the information programmatically within a sequence file as we can with many other TestStand processes.

Here is a screenshot of the utility for those unfamiliar with it:

Batch Step into / Step Over / Step Out

View All (3)

TestStand user interface in XAML

View All (3)

Pre/Post-Execution substep

View All (2)

Right now, custom substeps (edit substep in particular) only supports one step at a time. (I can only invoke the edit substep if exactly one step is selected). However, I have a case where I have a dozen or more steps in a row that are all the same custom step type, and I want to perform the custom edit event on all of them. This means going through each one individually, which takes a while. I'd love to be able to select all of them, and then invoke the edit substep call for all of them at once. The "cheap" way to do this would be to just invoke the edit substep of the first one, and then once that is done to go to the next, and the next, and finally you are done (but this is still annoying to the user). What would be nice is to be able to pass an array of sequence context values in (one for each step that is selected), and then your edit code could manage all of the steps however it sees fit. If multiple different step types are selected, it could just default to not allowing a multi-step custom edit, but ideally if all of the steps selected shared a common edit substep entry (name and module) it would allow it.

When developing code for the customization of the User (Operator) Interface, I would like the capability to provide my own custom dialog box for “Loop on Selected Steps” by overriding the standard dialog box that TestStand provides. TestStand provides this standard dialog box when the command kind “Loop On Selected Steps Using” is executed.

The problem in our production environment often is our production technicians are required to (manually) perform interactively with a series of sequence steps and repeat those steps 29 times (Our strict regulatory guidelines). Most of our technicians are technologically challenged in our production environment. In our environment, I have developed the TestStand User Interface to where the TestStand Execution and Sequence Views are hidden to production operators but visible to the developers (engineers) and administrators for trouble shooting capability.

If a custom dialog box cannot be done, at least provide the capability to where I can programmability change the properties of the “Loop On Selected Steps”. At least allow the dialog box to be programmability set to where I can set the number of loops, set the stop condition, stop expression, enable/disable the controls or hide the dialog box without the operator needing to manually entering those values into the dialog box.

In a recent Test Stand training session at my work, we learned about Engine callbacks and specifically about the Load and Unload ability to run code when simply loading or unloading a TS sequence file. In speaking with our FE, there is no was to disable the Engine callbacks and he asked that I post this request.

Without the ability to disable this feature, there can be inadvertent to malicious consequences. The loading or unload of a sequence file needs to be passive during development so the sequence file can be reviewed and verified to be harmless before putting the sequence file out for production use.

In the inadvertent instance, a developer could produce something that they are not quite sure will work and it could produce a side-effect. It would be good to be able to open this sequence file and review all the steps before the Engine Load callback has any chance of running.

In the malicious instance, the Engine Load could be used to perform unwanted events - I.E.. Performing a system call to format the C: drive, making a remote connection to an external computer, etc. during the code load and before anyone has a chance to review the sequence file and verify that it is harmless.

The Engine callbacks are a great feature but with the inability to disable them creates a great security risk. There needs to be an option in the TS Sequence Editor to disable all or selected Engine callbacks and then a sequence file can be opened safely and reviewed before execution.

NI TestStand Idea Exchange

Teststand Base Deployment license registration should not require a NI profile.

Support for creating locals for Image type

Quick switch between the release and debug dll

Two Screen Mode

Add the possibility to define the datatypes described in .net assemblies.

New feature request: Time elapsed step type

Implement step grouping

Include plug-in child classes to a deployment package

Feature request: statistical information when looping the step

Additional Results - Include in Report: Select which reports to include additional results in.

The round-half-up type of tie-breaking shall be added as an option to the Round() function.

The TestStand Offline Results Processing should conform to plug-in model set forth by TestStand

Batch Step into / Step Over / Step Out

TestStand user interface in XAML

Feature request: allow to change the names of the measurement in multiple measurement step type.

Pre/Post-Execution substep

edit substep supports multiple steps

Custom Dialog Box Overriding the standard "Loop on Selected Steps" Dialog Box

Disable Engine Callbacks during Development

Teststand configurations based on windows login