I work with TestStand 2012 in my actual project to test a device (design test).
If I call a sequence about "sequence call" (Adpater: Sequence, Type: SequenceCall) I receive always a passed result.
"ignore runtime errors" is set in this testsystem, because the tests run several days, also over night and on weekends without a user.
The VIs which I call in tthe tests deliver pass/fail flag to TestStand to "Step.Result.PassFail". If an error or failure occurs in a used VI call, TestStand works well and do the configured error handling (abort this step or test, or anything else).
Just the result is shown wrong... error or failure --> "Passed"
I changed the Type of the Adpater to "Action" and also to "Pass/Fail Test", but I don't find the correct expression. If I used "Pass/Fail Test", I received every time a "failed" instead of "passed".
Can anybody tell me the right expression that works?
Solved! Go to Solution.
I tried the same configuration and saw the Sequence Call have a result of Failed when one of the steps failed. One thing to check: In the Step Settings for your steps, in the Run Mode category there is a checkbox for "Step Failure causes Sequence Failure". Is this checked for your steps?
Another possibility is that you are seeing this because you are running the sequence in a new thread. If this is the case, the result of the Sequence Call will be "Done", because the result of that sequence will not be available when TestStand moves on to the next step in MainSequence. However, you can add a Wait step later in your sequence and configure it to wait for the new thread to complete. The result of this Wait step will then be the pass/fail result of the sequence.
Hope that helps, and let us know how it goes!
thanks for your help.
"Step Failure causes Sequence Failure" is checked in every step, also I run every Sequnece in the same thread or execution.
I think the problem is "ignore run-time errors". If I DON'T ignore them, the status goes to "error" if an error occures.
But I have to ignore run-time errors because our tests are running without a user over night and on weekends. So an exception which needs an user action is a big problem.
this question is essentially the same as this one?
If yes, please mark this thread as resolved as well.
The problem I see is you think that ignorring an error instead of handling it is a good way to do things. If your test needs to run without intervention then you need to handle all errors, not ignore them.
I just ignore the errors in TestStand. All errors get handled about LabView, RT-System and Java-Classes, we use TestStand only as a simple sequencer.
Thanks for your statement.