NI TestStand Idea Exchange

Community Browser
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Post an idea

Hi all,


wouldn't be really nice if one could copy and paste step properties?

  1. copy each property idividually...OR
  2. copy selected properties....OR
  3. copy ALL properties (well, like #2 but select all...haha...oops...yes)




Hi folks,


When writing TestStand UI components using LabVIEW, there are a lot of scenarios where using a callback VI to handle a TestStand event is the right move. As of writing this, that's the only way.


There have also been plenty of times when I would have preferred to handle a TestStand event directly within a LabVIEW event structure. In these kinds of scenarios my code would be less complicated if we had the ability to directly register TestStand engine events with LabVIEW's "Register for Events" node.


Years ago when learning TestStand, I tried to do this out of intuition and I was kind of surprised that it wasn't supported.


Below is an illustration of what I'm proposing.



I think it can a be a really good idea to review and give feedback on all Idea exchange.


You ask us to give feedback but you don't finish the loop.


Some idea are mark as new for many years now...

Since TestStand 2019, it's possible to configure an action step with a LabVIEW Module to switch between using a source VI and using the same one but compiled into a LabVIEW Packed Project Library (PPL).

The option, accessible in two ways, is called "Always run VI in Packed Project Library".


That's a neat possibility since it's allow to switch between a development version with easy debugging of a classical VI, and an optimized and locked production version with PPL.
One non compiled VI
One compiled VI into a PPL
One LabVIEW project
One TestStand step


However, when LabVIEW Adapter is set to Run-Time, a tight coupling between the compiled VI and the non-compiled VI is maintained for no reason.


Example 1)
-A VI is developed and compiled on a development machine A
-It is called as the module of an action step
-The VI, the PPL, the .lvproj and the .seq are pasted on a production machine B with fresh installations of LabVIEW and TestStand
-LabVIEW Adapter set to Run-Time on machine B
-Always run VI in Packed Project Library set on machine B
--> The execution will not start, since the classical error -17600 appears on the call. The reason is because the LabVIEW cache of the machine B does not contains data from the .lvproj. Simply opening then closing the .lvproj updates the LV cache, which solves the issue. However, it makes no sense to depend of the LabVIEW development environment on this production machine since the LabVIEW Adapter is set to Run-Time and "Always run VI in Packed Project Library" is enabled.


Example 2)
-LabVIEW Adapter set to Run-Time
-Always run VI in Packed Project Library
--> If source VI is deleted, it takes a long time to preload the modules. See here


Proposition :
When the LabVIEW Adapter is set to Run-Time and "Always run VI in Packed Project Library" is enabled, it should be possible :
- To not install the LabVIEW development environment (only the LV Run-Time)
- To keep only the PPL (and eventually the .lvproj) and to delete the source VI (no source code on production machine)

      I am currently working on a project using the Teststand software's seq editor. This project has many steps, with nearly 3000 steps. During my seq editing and debugging process, sometimes I need to repeatedly jump in different sections and change some parameters. Oh my God, quickly finding a step between so many steps is driving me crazy, and I feel like my life is getting dark.

      So I was thinking, why can't Teststand add a serial number display to the left of the seq edit box? This way, whether I am positioning a certain step or telling my colleagues which line needs to be changed, I simply need to obtain or convey a line number information. I believe that adding this information to an editing form is not particularly difficult.

      Why not make it better to use?

      Brothers, it's already 2023. Are you willing to continue enduring this pain?

It would be nice to have an Auto-populating folder option for TestStand projects much the same way that LabVIEW project do.  


Folders added to TestStand projects are snapshots of the folder's contents when added.  Any files added to the folder on disk afterwards are not marked for inclusion with the deployment at analysis time.  This behavior is fine as a default.


However, there are times when you do want to automatically include all files in a folder.  Having an auto-populating folder option would mark the folder and all its contents for inclusion automatically with the deployment at analysis time.  After analysis is over the user could still choose to uncheck any files they wish before selecting the build button.


From version to version, it's only natural that developers will be adding new files to established folders.  Since the TestStand project doesn't aid in development activities, it's easy for folks to forget to add files while they're developing.  We often have a faulty build or two with each release because necessary files aren't making it into the build.  We ultimately have to delete the folders in the project and re-add them, then go through the hassle of fixing the paths and included files. An auto-populating folder option that integrates with the build utility would save us time and headaches.


TestStand File Diff and Merge Utility is not very useful for code reviews on its own.  It seems adequate for notifying the user that a sequence was added, however from the tool itself the user cannot actually review the newly added or removed sequence's contents.  Why is there no + on the item tree to go deeper.



If I have to right-click a sequence and select "Go to location" then why bother with the separate tool to begin with?  Why isn't the diff utility integrated into TestStand's sequence editor itself?  Seems like a side-by-side comparison within Sequence Editor would allow a reviewer to poke and prod around all the hidden settings that are often missed using the existing utility.


TestStand File Diff and Merge Utility has the ability to produce reports in XML format with a slew of dependencies on TestStand (stylesheets, button images, etc.) making them not very portable.  Yes, I know they can be packaged with the extra utility, but that's a hassle too.  Now instead of managing a file I have to manage a folder of files.


Additionally, these reports only seem to work with Internet Explorer which I'm hearing is going away. Not sure if it's just me, but Edge's IE mode doesn't seem to work for these reports either.


Can NI do something to address this?

  • Make a browser extension that works with at least chromium based browsers.
  • Figure out a nice PDF format.


Ideally, I want to upload the file type into my code review platform of choice (git, perforce swarm, crucible, network folder share, etc.) and not require my reviewer to have TestStand installed on their machine.

Currently, if you have LabVIEW code modules that use maps or sets you have to use something like an Action Engine to interact with the map, you cannot pass a map from LabVIEW into TestStand and vice-versa.


Maps are an incredibly useful data structure and having support for them natively in TestStand would be very helpful, not just for LabVIEW but also due to how prevalent maps (dictionaries) are used in Python as well.




Add feature to allow commands and sequences created in Tools->Customize->Customize Tool Menu->Add Tools Menu Item.
When customer creates a command or sequence in this section he would like to put it in the toolbar for quick access , TestTand does not allow this task. TestStand allows the toolbar customization for items that are TS native basically



it can be a simple and stupid question, but I don’t get why, when I define a container as a parameter of a sequence called in the main sequence. That parameter can’ be expanded to fill the different field with the variables that I need. I created also custom type variable for trying to achieve this aim but nothing. I thing that passing a container as parameter can be helpful in particular when you need to pass a lot of variables regarding the same “object".


Best Regards,


Download All


In the TestStand report generator it's possible to show/plot graphs within the report.
Unfortunatelly it's not possible to add axis labels to the graphs.
In my opinion this is a must because a graph without knowing the units of x, y axis is a useless graph.
It would be awesome if this feature could be implemented.

Many thanks
Best regards


I was debugging on a test station and had several watch expressions.

When I came in this morning they were all gone, someone else used that station and deleted them.


I think it would be good to be able to save the expressions in a file and be able to load them.

An additional feature would be the ability to load them from a sequence step.

Adding the same option as installer advanced options to lock the Labview Packaged Library Version to the Deployment file Version




It would be nice to have an auto-incrementation option checkbox (like LabVIEW executable version).


And addindg the build index would be even better ...




I would like to ask to add named types support for TestStand array literals. The current behavior is described as follows:


Declares a one-dimensional array of numbers, strings, Boolean values, object references, or containers. If all elements are of the same type, the result array is an array of elements of that type. If all elements are not of the same type, the result array is an array of containers.

I would like it to be more or less like this:

Declares a one-dimensional array of numbers, strings, Boolean values, object references, containers, or named type. If all elements are of the same type, the result array is an array of elements of that type. If all elements are not of the same type, the result array is an array of containers.

The problem with the current implementation can be seen on the screen.



It is not a bug (BUG 1828580 to be more precise), it is a feature.

If I call a python function within the TestStand Python adapter the arguments for the functions must be according the order of the function which isn't Python like. This means the order of the arguments in TestStand must be exactly the same as in the Python function, the name of the argument is ignored.
It would be really nice if the TestStand Python adapter would support Keyword Arguments as well.



Under the Installer Options tab, there is a button called Advanced Options.... (help linked)and then a section for TestStand Specific Settings. This section allows a user to specify where the configuration files will be located when running the TestStand runtime engine on a deployment machine. See screenshot of help discription and then of the utility below:


TestStand specific settings.PNG



Screenshot of Deployment Utility Section

Deployment Utility Advanced Options.png


Recommended Change to Documentation

When looking at the help documentation, it does not detail what each of the possible destination directories are pointing to. However, if we move to the Distribution Files tab section of the help, there is a detailed list. See this example link here


I recommend making a quick link to this same page to clarify the directories that can be specified for Cfg files.

Currently, there is no unambiguous solution for passing empty Array of X (where X is a different type than 64-bit Floating Point) as a sequence parameter. If we use {} it is assumed to be of type 64-bit Floating Point. To have an empty Array of Strings we can use ambigues Split("",""). I have no idea how to pass e.g. empty Array of Signed 64-bit Integer without creating empty variables.


It would useful to have Empty Array Literals of a particular type e.g.:

{} - default

{}i64 - for Signed 64-bit Integer

{}ui64 - for Unsigned 64-bit Integer

{}s - for String

{}b - for Boolean

{}r - for Object Reference

{}c - for Container

{}TYPE_NAME - for type definition where TYPE_NAME is type definition name; e.g. Path.