NI TestStand Idea Exchange

Community Browser
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: 
Post an idea

In the same way that the setup, main, and cleanup can be expanded or collapsed, do the same for all of the flow control steps.

 

Have the steps expanded by default.

 

I think it would make it easier to study long sequences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

when you click over a flow control statement, for example an if, the content of this statement will be not visible. When you click again over the same statement, the content will be visible again.

Download All

Let's say I'm building a fairly long compound expression that has some repeated parameters - I would like a way to specify (without creating additional locals) a variable/macro for use just within that expression.

 

For example, instead of:

Locals.CommandLine = "cmd /c C:\some path\that\is\reused" Locals.CommandLine += " /path C:\some path\that\is\reused"

 

 

I could specify:

#pathmacro "C:\some path\that\is\reused" Locals.CommandLine = "cmd /c " + pathmacro Locals.CommandLine += " /path " + pathmacro

 

 

The idea being that with this I only need to update the macros in one place in a long expression.

 

This is a simple example, but hopefully you can see why this would be useful and why I wouldn't want to create lots of locals when the values are required only within the expression.

I was pretty surprised that this isn't already possible or that there wasn't an idea in the ideas exchange for it. The idea is to allow custom step types to embed their 'edit' dialogue into the configuration tab for the step settings. At the moment you have to click a generic 'edit <step type>' button to launch a dialogue.

 

Instead of:

Embed Dialogue.PNG

 

Have:

Embed Dialogue 2.png

 

This would make custom step types much more user friendly and save unnecessary clicks/steps required to custom and bring the experience of configuring steps more in line with the built-in step types.

 

I appreciate that it might require a little more effort on the developers part (e.g. posting new values on value change instead of on 'ok'/'cancel') but it could also help to avoid some issues like 'hanging' TestStand when the dialogue is closed and the panel close isn't disabled/handled.

If you have lot of code between an if, else, end statement steps (and other flow control structures for, foreach, while, and etc.), it would be nice to roll all that up so you can see more of the flow of the sequence.  This will also help to know what steps are in those structures in large sequences.  TestStand already has some code folding in the sequence, so this is an expansion of this.  Many text and code editors have this feature and it would be a great feature for TestStand.

 

 

I'd like to see a "No Comparison" comparison type added to the String Value Test.

 

Currently there are only two options for comparison type on the String Value Test: "CaseSensitive" and "IgnoreCase".  I have often wished there was a "No Comparison" option similar to what is available for the Numeric Limit Test.  Sometimes you want to pass a string to the test report in the result field that neither passes nor fails the test.

Hi,

 

Exactly as in subject.

 

I thought that it will be good if the developers could collapse blocks of code which are in between of the Flow Control or/and Synchronisation step types.

 

I think about the mechanism we know already from TestStand which hides block of code: i.e. Setup, Main, Cleanup section in the sequence, or it can hide variables. It is a little "+" and little"-" to expand the content of the type of variables.

 

Capture333.PNG  Capture444.PNG

 

The types of steps I think of were mainly types from Flow Control and some types from Synchronisation. It would be good if for example we could collapse If-Else-ElseIf-End, Select-End, Case-End, While-End, DoWhile-End, etc statements

 

I think this functionality could improve the readability of the sequence, and helps the developers to have a better view on the whole sequence.

 

We in our company are done now several test systems where the best process model is Batch Model. Customers however does not want other reports than UUT report from each test socket. Simple skipping of batch report generation is not possible at the moment particularly now when plug-in structure has arrive for joy of us all. For me this wanted feature is late now because I manage to find out solution, with a great support of local NI team. Finally this feature of easy batch report disabling would serve future generations and today newbies. They will save hundres of hours when they don't have to use try&fail -method to skip those few meaningful steps but just make one selection in report options.

It would be really nice to be able to call LabVIEW functions (primitives) directly from TestStand steps instead of having to create and call wrapper VIs for them.

I have a sequence file that contains hundreds of sequences.  It would be nice to be able to logically group and organize these sequences, such as in a tree control with virtual directories (hierarchy), instead of them being in a single long list.

It is very common to use a typedef as input or output terminal for any VI. If such VI is used in TestStand either as custom step or in a sequence, then teststand requires a relink of step/sequence whenever the typedef values are modified.

 

Teststand need to resolve this differences automatically, rather than expecting user to relink sequences.

 

This execution analyser ( an option since it may slow down execution) will analyse the UUTGener executions and recomend user for improving the perfomance.

Few things that i can think of  is :

1) If a  debug DLL is running which if replaced will improve speed.

2) Check for memory leaks.

3) Generate list of steps which are logged many times ( example in loop which may not be requied to log)

4)List out steps which are taking long time to execute( say top 5)

5)List out steps whose execution time is inconsistent ( varies considerably from execution to execution

 

These are few of the things that i could think of.There maybe others.

 

The usual Insert Step menu in TestStand:

suggestion1.png

 

What the menu might look like with a Insert VISA step:

suggestion2.png

 

A VISA>>Write step would replace a LabVIEW Action Step such as the one I used below for direct Instrument control from TestStand. Queries would look similar and be able to set limits on the returned value.

suggestion3.png

 

LabVIEW VI for the power supply command to the VISA instrument setup from M&A Explorer.

suggestion4.png

 

This is “PS1” in Measurement and Automation Explorer uses Alias Name.

suggestion5.png

 

Example of Query instrument to an Agilent 34970A using Alias Name “DM1” setup in MAX.

suggestion6.png

 

However, a little more complicated than a single string command from the menu. Might take several Write steps first.

suggestion7.png

 

Possible Uses:

  1. Debugging
  2. Instrument control without additional software or programming languages.
  3. Ability to immediately add new instruments and modify existing sequences without an instrument driver. Demonstrates the quickest possible way to gain instrument control with the least effort (for simple systems).
  4. Simple test sequences can be written right away making it easier for technicians or engineers to write tests.
  5. VISA sequence steps can be dragged to the palette and easily re-used.
    suggestion8.png 

So we have the setup, main and cleanup step groups in the sequence view which is fine, and they're collapsable which means if you're working in Main you don't get a screenfull of Setup above you.

We also have block sections that you can associate with step types to provide indentations making navigation easier.

What I'd like to see is the ability to create a collapsible section (so a sub sequence call is NOT what I'm talking about).

For times when a sub sequence call is not necessary, we should be able to insert a block section that is collapsable purely for visual appeal.

It makes long sequences easier to navigate. This would be a visual implementation modification on how we show block sections (so collapse versus indent).

 

Thoughts?

Thanks
Sacha

It would be nice to have the message popup be more generic so that it can be used in more situations. For example to notify the user that there is a wait in progress. It is currently not possible to remove the button from the Message popup.