How can I reset UUT Results in the Test Report to print PASSED?

[Bagman]

During extreem temperature testing of our product, failures are acceptable. But the test report Pass/Fail indicator must be reset to PASSED if the failure occured during the extreem cold temperature profile. I have tried to reset the Locals.Status to "PASSED" without success, the printed Test Report still says "UUT Result: Failed". Now I am trying to set Locals.Status equal to Parameters.MainSequenceResults.Status but Teststand reports an error.

[j_dodek]

Hi Bagman,

You have modify your report header with a callback

So check out this link:

http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?board.id=330&message.id=19099&query.id=56325#M19099

greetings

juergen

[Josh_W]

Bagman,

A better way of doing this might be to ignore the failures in the first place.  If you know that a failure of a step would be acceptable, there is an option Step Failure Causes Sequence Failure.  If this option is not checked, the status of the step will still remain "Failed" but the failure will not propagate down the callstack into the calling sequence or into the UUT result.

Of course, if sometimes you don't want to ignore the failures of a particular step, this option is setable through the API:

Step.StepFailCausesSequenceFail

Message Edited by Josh W. on 09-29-2008 09:27 AM

[j_dodek]

Hi Josh,

Thank you! 

I love this forum because you are daily focused on the easy stuff you should never forget.
Bagman belive Josh! It more easier just setting one flag than writting a hole callback.

Neverless - I hope you have learned something about callbacks in TS

Greetings

Juergen

[Bagman]

To further complicate my problem, My application can test 5 different boxes, each box has over 300 unique tests and each box runs in the environmental chamber through 5 temperature cycles. Only the failures that occured at -70 Degrees C can be ignored, all other failures must be reported as usual.

[Captain_Jack]

Bagman,

What you're trying to do may be handled better by your sequence design than by a TestStand 'feature'. 

We've done something similar to what you're doing, except we had to ignore only specific failures at cold. To get around conditionally allowable failures, we abstracted the cold tests one level deeper than the rest of the thermal cycle, and set the higher level Pass/Fail flag based on the results AND the conditions we could ignore or not at the next level. Basically, we made a filter call for cold tests that we could pass along the result or override as necessary.

But if all you need to do is show test data, then you could do the following:

Normal Test (Ambient, Transition, and Hot) call the tests using a Pass/Fail sequence call, and set the result based on the test results.

Cold Test call the tests using and Action Sequence, which doesn't use the Pass/Fail flag and won't propagate the failure up the report chain (I think, you can just uncheck the SFCSF flag for that sequence if necessary).

But I gotta ask, since it's possible we still aren't getting the whole picture; why bother testing at all for pass/fail results at cold if you're going to ignore the results anyway?

-Jack