Add a delay in a loop type test step

[jeffh12345]

I agree with clear the buffer, but I don't have a command to do that

I can, however send this commad twice as an action to clear the buffer, then send the third time and test the return

(I may be sending it 1 time too many on some boards, with a cost of 300ms, but I can live with that)

It's not as pretty, but it works

I assume that there is no way to embed a delay in the embedded step loop

Thanks All!

Ok, now onto teststand coding style:

Ray,

can you convince me that this loop to PASS functionality is for debug only?

After all, if I am in debug, I can select a step and loop on anything

In production use, I agree that the loop until pass will create LOTs of problems, and is a poor coding choice in general

Don't get me started on looping until it passes 5 times, hey there is something just wrong there

but, to syncronise, or flush a buffer, anything that is asynchonous in nature, It appears a valid choice to me, especially because it handles the error reporting gracefully, by just de selecting the record results for each iteration (anyone agree?)

Jeff

[Ray.R]

LOL!!  😄

I'm not going to try to convince anything to anyone, as everyone is entitled to an opinion.. 😄

Sometimes we have to do unpretty coding as a workaround.  

There might be cases where the loop is necessary, such as the voting.  For instance, you have a data acquisition system which unfortunately acquires noisy signals.  You need to find some sort of signature within the signal and want to eliminate a fluke in the samples.  You would then proceed with a vote, which means running the test at least 3 times and seeing if the signature could be detected twice.  (ie: voteBetterThan >  (#samples/2) + 1  )

There might be some other situations.   If it was possible for you to implement the clear buffer of read once & discard the garbage communication within the software code, then I'd say that you should not use a loop to verify if there is a pass.

Your situation is a bit different and you are implementing it as a workaround.  Not the best scenario, but it gets you out of a bind..  It's a controlled implementation that works for you.  Let's keep it a that 😉

When you mention embedded code, are you referring to firmware?  or embedded software (ie: VxWorks, etc)?

R

[jeffh12345 · Accepted solution]

Teststand allows you to do the same things many different ways

I agree most of them are not ideal, some are good, 1 or 2 ways optimal

By embedded, I was referring to the looping tab on the step

If you choose CUSTOM, then you can mess with the looping logic using expressions

I was originally trying to get a delay in the loop, everything in 1 step

jeff

[RENEGOMEZ]

I used a custom loop to add a delay if the step failed until I got a pass to continue

Add this code to the "Loop Increment Expression"

RunState.Execution.WaitForEndEx(RunState.LoopNumPassed==0?100:0)

if it fails then add a delay of 100 ms.

[ET]

Finally somebody actually answered the OPs question!

[MAAG24]

Could you help me? I don’t know why when i try to use your Loop Increment Expression, it appears that syntax error.

thanks!

[altenbach]

---

@MAAG24 wrote:

I don’t know why when i try to use your Loop Increment Expression, it appears that syntax error.

---

Adding to a six year of thread that is already marked as solved is probably not the best way to get answers. Consider starting a new thread with a clear subject line.