Alternative LabVIEW Test Executive/Sequence Tools Available

[AvitalY]

It worth looking at Testview Integrator: 

http://tvi.co/

It's a LabVIEW based test manager that was built for those who don't need the extra overkill of TestStand.

(Disclaimer: I'm affiliated with Testview)

[Hooovahh]

Kinda neat looking.  I am curious about its limitations so I might try the trial later.  I must say the pricing is a bit confusing.  So I get a developer comes with the ability to run and not just create tests.  And I get that the runner is just for running, not editing tests.  And I now realize the database add on is for developers only, and running a sequence that uses this feature isn't extra.  But what is multi-unit/site tests?  I think it would be helpful to have a paragraph stating what comes with each item.  Also it looks like the documentation isn't complete.  If you go to this page and click TVI LabVIEW API on the left menu it starts a line with "The" with no other text after it.

http://tvi.co/documentation/

[AvitalY]

Thanks for your notes, we'll fix the documentation issue soon.

Sorry about the confusion regarding the pricing, it goes like this:

TVI can run in 2 modes: Developer and Runner.

The Runner mode enables to run test sequences and generate reports. It also enables to edit the sequence and test parameters, but it does not let you edit the actual tests. It is aimed to be used at the production line. 

A single developer license comes with extra runner license, so you have 1 developer station and 1 production station.

The Add-ons are installed on all stations (dev+runners), however we only charge per the number of dev licenses you have.

So, if you have 2 developer stations and 10 runner stations, and you buy the DB add-on - you'l pay only for the 2 developer stations and the add-on will be free on all runner stations.

The Multi-Unit add-on enables to run test sequences on multi-UUT. Here's a short demo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83tS8QN9328

[Hooovahh]

---

@AvitalY wrote:

The Multi-Unit add-on enables to run test sequences on multi-UUT. Here's a short demo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83tS8QN9328 

---

Like batch testing in the TestStand process model.  I'd also suggest updating that video it very much seems like a teenager showing how to do something on the internet.  I'd like to hear the presenter talking about the features, and describing what they are doing, something similar to how JKI does  it.  Worst is when youtubers open notepad and start typing out instructions.

[AvitalY]

Thanks for the feedback, we're working to improve the videos.

Here's a new video with voice explanations that provides good overview:

https://youtu.be/r7-uxWY91fM

[FiloP]

I know this thread is almost 10 years old but I think AI is changing the Test landscape quickly and maybe the question is worth asking again as the answer may have changed meanwhile.

there appears to be essentially 2 or 3 alternatives to NI Teststand with various degree of "free" 

OpenTAP

PyTestFlow

https://testflowinc.com/

here a deeper dive on the topic

https://buymeacoffee.com/filippo.persia/the-test-executive-landscape-is-ripe-disruption

[apg_air]

To be honest there isn't much involved in building your own Test Executive or test sequencer. I used the original National Instruments Test Executive which was written purely in LabVIEW, and then wrote my own from scratch based on the same sort of structure.

You should write all of your tests so that you can run them standalone, this helps with debugging. Then write a number of VIs for storing results, numeric or text, to a plain text file, CSV format works best. Put these together into individual test sequences. Then you can call all of these individual sequences using a state machine with a simple GUI for entering serial number, tester name etc.

The original test executive used a sequence file which was plain text, consisting of a list of VIs to be called plus any extra test parameters to be passed to the VIs.

The last few places I have worked I have used a similar technique. The advantage is that the code can be compiled and then installed on as many PCs as required, including factory and customers PCs, without any worrying about licences.

[Yamaeda]

---

@FiloP wrote:

I know this thread is almost 10 years old but I think AI is changing the Test landscape quickly and maybe the question is worth asking again as the answer may have changed meanwhile.

there appears to be essentially 2 or 3 alternatives to NI Teststand with various degree of "free" 

OpenTAP

PyTestFlow

https://testflowinc.com/

here a deeper dive on the topic

https://buymeacoffee.com/filippo.persia/the-test-executive-landscape-is-ripe-disruption

---

At my company we've built 3(?) sequencers and where i've worked as consultant i've seen at least as many others.

The simplest form is an ini-file which points out VI's that you run in order. Dynamically starting VI's through VI server is easy.

ini-file could look something like:

[sequence]

Init

Measure

Verify

Report

Shutdown

[init]

path=init.vi

resource=com5

...

[measure]

path=instruments\keithley\read.vi

resource=ch2

samples=100k

rate=1MHz

[FiloP]

@ Yamaeda

" At my company we've built 3(?) sequencers and where i've worked as consultant i've seen at least as many others. " 

I think this is the problem NI set out to solve with TestStand and with a high degree of success.

Does it makes sense that in a single company for whatever reasons 3 different test sequencers / executives are built ? Why the 1st 2nd and 3rd one wasn't "good enough" ? 

Now AI is changing this landscape.

How ?

On one side we could have yet even more proliferation of code because is "a simple problem to solve" ... But i'm not sure the 30 Test sequencers in the same company is a good way to hammer the problem. 

OR different approach could emerge like

OpenTap or Pytesflow that reduce the cost of entry for companies to have at least the test sequencing / reporting / safety problem solved once. 

I think on the long run a "free & open" test executive will gain quite a bit of traction. Which one ? yet to be defined. 

br

Filippo