NI TestStand Idea Exchange

For debugging pourposec I'd be good if developers can set "do not use this variabe during execution".

Then developers can set this flag on, on the variable which they suspect  is not in use during the execution.

If is in use then a message will be displayed.

Hi,

Now when devs want to do the OR-like logical operation ob their objects they have to do it in one of the ways presented

1.

Locals.MyString="AAA" || Locals.MyString="BBB" || Locals.MyString="CCC"

 2.

AnyOf(Locals.MyString="AAA",Locals.MyString="BBB",Locals.MyString="CCC")

Wouldn't be better if devs could use SQL-like syntax like, for example, below:

Locals.MyString IN ("AAA","BBB","CCC")

or

Locals.MyString=("AAA"||"BBB"||"CCC")

?

Hi,

Before proposal a bit of introduction.

It is not well known feature that we can name the containers. This feature can be very useful if we consider naming the array elements. Using it we can access array elements not by index but by the name we give them.

To illustrate this feature please have a look at the picture below.

Using this feature we can access elements not only like that

Locals.Cnt[0]
Locals.Cnt[1]
...

But like that as well.

Locals.Cnt["P112"]
Locals.Cnt["P113"]
...

This is an existing feature. What is new then?

The proposal:

For all looping steps For For  Each I'd like to propose to introduce additional array element loop variable called Current Name.

In this field devs could reference a variable which will be storing the name of the

What is beneficial?

Using this we can access element of the array of cluster independently from their location in the array and proposed idea will let easily access to the elements from within the loop. We can bind against the name not the index only.

O course it would be even more beneficial even devs could name element array of ANY type not containers only.

We can also name  the elements of the array which consists of containers. In this way we can have nice binding method and instead call the array elements vie index we can call them by its name (string). The postulate additional array element loop variable could be just below the current subscript form. The current view of the For Each Loop looks like below.

The benefit of this additional array would be that we would know the current name of the element and we could call this element using its name not a number. Then developers could use that name to call the element in that loop by using its name.

Hi,

AnArray[0..4][0..3][0..2][0..1]

for (int i = 0; i <= 4; i++)
{
    for(int j = 0; j <= 3; j++)
    {
        for(int k = 0; k <= 2; k++)
        {
            for(int l = 0; l <= 1; l++)
            {
                AnArray[i][j][k][l]
            }
        }
   }
}

Recently I came accros situation like that:

I have a local container called AAA with the subproperty called "Name".

Then I'd like to change the name of the AAA container using the API function ".Name".

However, when I call Local.AAA.Name, instead of changing the name of AAA container I'm accessing the subproperty with this name.

I think the name "Name" should be reserved as a name of subproperty.

In TS Sequence Analyzer Results Window:

it would be helpful to be able to have a column of RuleID in the results table.  This way when we are debugging/ troubleshooting results of custom rules that it would be much easier to track down to the specific RuleID that is being used (names/categories/descriptions can all be duplicated)

Right now RuleID is not available as one of the columns of the results table -- add it as an option.

I do NOT think it should be visible by default, but we should be able to show it optionally if we want.

Also, if you select an analysis message from the results, you can right click on it and choose "Goto Rule"

Now at this point you are in the list of rules, but if you want to go track down what RuleID caused the problem, you are dead in the water -- you need to look at the rule name and description and then manually go to the rule configuration page and search through the list to find the right one.  It would be so much nicer if you could right click on the rule in the analyzer project and be able to open the "Configure available rules" window.