Re-Configurable Test Sequence

[Defaphe]

As testing lot of product's references on the same tester I've also crossed this issue in the past.

For my use I use the same thing as others said : Queued State Machine + Database.

You can select a Reference (be it a product or a sequence name) that will trigger a search into your database to find the steps related to that Reference. The Step name is the name of the State from your State Machine, by doing this you can queue the steps in the right order.

When running an individual step you have a cluster (Reference + step name) to find the appropriate limits in the database for the specific use case.

As long your step already exists and is conform to your needs, you can change your sequence order and limits only by managing your database and not the source code ==> Easy to duplicate, inhibit a step, etc...

[RTSLVU]

---

@Taggart wrote:

---

@RTSLVU wrote:

This screams Queued State Machine...

---

Actually it screams Test Stand.

---

All of our manufacturing Engineers are sold on Test Stand..

Frankly I have never understood the need for it when I can just wrap tests up in a QSM.

Saved our facility a lot of $$$ on Test Stand licensing over the years.

[Taggart]

---

@RTSLVU wrote:

---

@Taggart wrote:

---

@RTSLVU wrote:

This screams Queued State Machine...

---

Actually it screams Test Stand.

---

All of our manufacturing Engineers are sold on Test Stand..

Frankly I have never understood the need for it when I can just wrap tests up in a QSM.

Saved our facility a lot of $$$ on Test Stand licensing over the years.

---

It all depends on your use case. 

I've seen lots of people save money on licensing only to spend it on engineering cost to reinvent the wheel.

If all you need is a really simple sequencer, then sure LabVIEW is a fine choice. However, as you start adding requirements and get closer to what TestStand offers out of the box, it becomes a more attractive option.

The time you spend creating a test sequencer is time not spent helping your customer solve their problem.

[santo_13]

I am with @Taggart.

In the beginning, everyone thinks they could easily develop something to replicate TestStand but they start appreciating the how scalable and flexible TestStand is once they hit all the roadblocks, all those midnight oil burnt coming up with an architecture and countless months and years of development, bug-fix, support, feature addition.

In the end, you would realize it is better to go with the off-the-shelf solution.

I am not saying you can't develop a test sequencer, but the question is, is it worth reinventing just because you can and you have the time and resources?

[Taggart]

---

@santo_13 wrote:

In the beginning, everyone thinks they could easily develop something to replicate TestStand but they start appreciating the how scalable and flexible TestStand is once they hit all the roadblocks, all those midnight oil burnt coming up with an architecture and countless months and years of development, bug-fix, support, feature addition.

---

TestStand is a behemoth. It does a lot of things.

You probably don't need all of them, but they are there if you ever do.

The decision should be, am I ever going to need more than a simple sequencer? If the answer is yes, then Test Stand is certainly worth a look. 

If in the future that answer changes and your customer keeps asking you to add features that already exist in TestStand, it's never too late to consider switching.

The licensing isn't free, but in most cases, it is much cheaper than the engineering hours you would spend to add those features to your homebrew setup.