@PatJamSim wrote:
In MAX, the error handling determines the most likely cause for the error and delivers the message to the user. Note that, in some cases, the error message does not actually determine the exact problem. You might receive the message shown in your screen shot, then find the cause of the error is something different. In any case, MAX automatically provides a possible explanation.
Granted, however a numerical value &/or a meaningful message is much more informative than simply, "Self Test FAILED". Particularly in my recent case where the failure was clock related.
In the niScope_self_test function, a Boolean and a string are returned. Note from the niScope_selt_test help page states that the string returned is limited by the size of the buffer allocated for the string. If this function were to return the message shown in MAX, it would take a much larger chunk of memory to be displayed. This may not present a problem if you properly allocated the space for the message, and certainly shouldn't limit the ability of the function call to return useful data to the user. There is a DAQmx function call that converts an error message into a more useful piece of information, and I thought there might be an equivalent function for niScope, and found the niScope_error_query function. However, the niScope_self_test does not return an actual error code, only a pass/fail and a string, so I haven't been able to determine if there is a useful way to combine these functions.
In any case, I would say the difference in the self-tests lies only in the amount of information returned to the user, and not in how the tests are executed. There is certainly room for more discussion here. Have you found that the error query function is useful in conjunction with the self test?
It seems to me that this is a void in the self test function of niscope. Having worked with IVI drivers for close to a decade now, this is the first time I have seen a failure message like this. Since MAX returns a meaningful numeric indicator & message, the information is apparently being provided by the instrument, i.e. the information is available, just not being passed to the user. I'm not asking for a detailed message as shown by MAX, a simple -12345, "Clock Error occurred" would be sufficient. And since this is an automated system, asking them to run MAX to get the "real" error code/message is problematic and not standard to our system. So the real problem I forsee is, if there is a failure, the procedure would be to pull the card and return it to the vendor for repair. It would be nice to be able to pass the actual failure with the failing instrument, something more informative than "Self Test FAILED".
I have not tried the error_query function.
