NI TestStand Idea Exchange

Hi,

As in subject,

It would be good to have the Fail execution option. When the step will fail the execution pointer shal be moved to clean-up part of the sequence (and parent sequences) and the whole execution will be marked as failed

Sometimes in the tests we would like to check are they any common elements for two arrays.

TS2013 have a nice function called Contains() using which devs can easly check if the searched element is in the array or not.

And what about the function which returns an array of common elements of two even more than two arrays?

Instaed of looping one array and issuing Contains() command it would be good to have a kind of logical AND using which we can have a list of common elements?

Would the operator overloading be the right things to do?

Hi,

I propose to that the steps to have new feature called AllowableCallers.

Using this feature developers could restrict the callers (subsequences) from where the particular steps could be called.

Having this feature developers could prevent the mistakes of unintentional step copying during creating new subsequences using the copy-paste method.

The default value for this settings would be AllowAllCallers, but developer would be able to define the condition as they wish (function window f(x))

Hi,

The best would be to draw/paint the feature I'm proposing. However, it would take not so small amount of time, so I decided, regrettably, to write about it.

I wrote the word regrettably because visualised description of the target feature would be very much more attractive than words. Anyway... Back to the point.

The description is as simple as in subject: to allow to change the colour of the background of each step (separately).

Could you imagine how much the readability of the sequence could be improved with this feature? I think that would improve it a lot.

Mainly this feature could be enabled during coding and debugging as during these activities the developers have the problem with readability especially when the sequence is long and the whole project is big and long in time. It could be set to off on when the sequence will be on the shop floor, nevertheless, even in the operator mode this feature could deliver some 'tracing' benefits.

Developers could easily group block of steps and in very natural way - just to color the background of the steps - create a visual 

Reading colors is faster, easier, more intuitive than reading the structures (indent, nested calls). OK it is  - let call it  - one dimensional and it looks flat but it would add another degree of freedom in classifying/grouping the steps improving and speeding up overall readability.

The place (yellow) where this feature (just colour) can be controlled from:

Hi,

As in the subject: add ability to sign the sequence with the digital signature.

It would be good in this feature will be able to access the certificates stored not only in Windows containers, as it is done in LV now, but the containers located on external carriers USB cards, card readers.

Hi,

Exactly as in subject: add shortcut key to File-->Unload All modules.

It is very annoying to go again and again through File-->Unload All after each iteration of the module development.

Hi,

Exactly as in the subject.

Sometimes the names variables are long and could be deeply nested into containers.

Now it is difficult to use them as both windows: the main one and Selected are unresizable.

After proposed change the property loader would have all default features(behaviours) as you can expect from the window at this place.

Current situation presented on the picrure below.

Hello,

For the moment, the precondition builder editor only allow to check steps status or to create custom conditions.

It would be nice to add a way to test the current sequence Status.

To handle this, i create my own custom condition by using the runtime variables Runstate.SequenceFailed and  Runstate.SequenceError.

The problem is that these variables doesn't exist at edit time.

I think that adding this feature to the precondition builder editor could simplify our work.

Thanks.

Manu.

The MOST annoying part of working with TestStand is the fact that the developer has to re-enter e-v-e-r-y bloody value for a given parameter when the prototype changes in a LabVIEW VI. 

As a sister idea to this one, what is more annoying is the fact that when the container exists for a previous step and is already populated with all the values that you want to repeat elsewhere, TestStand does not allow you to copy and replace a parameter!  Unless there a non-obvious way of doing this (I will attempt a few unorthodox ways to get this done).  If so, it should be an obvious method and not something that requires contortions to accomplish a simple copy & paste. 

Even if the copy & paste could be done from within the parameters, ie: ability to select multiple values and paste them all into the parameter.  This is such a basic feature is most or all programming languages and applications that I cannot believe it does not exist in TestStand. 

In this particular case, the values are from Locals. variables.  And there are lots of them; between two parameters, over 300!!

Let's get on with the times!!  Improve the copy & paste feature, even for an ultra basic request like the one Ray Farmer requested in 2011..  See this link:

http://forums.ni.com/t5/NI-TestStand-Idea-Exchange/New-Paste-Value/idc-p/2504798#M721

The MOST annoying part of working with TestStand is the fact that the developer has to re-enter e-v-e-r-y bloody value for a given parameter when the prototype changes in a LabVIEW VI.  I seem to recall that older versions of TestStand would allow the user to do that, but the more recent version don't.  Maybe my mind is playing tricks on me and this was never possible..

In any case... When dealing with two parameters which have over 300 (yes!! THREE HUNDRED) entries, this is a bloody nightmare!!  Doing it once is nightmareish.. Doing it multiple times is a death sentence!!!  Sidenote:  I inherited the code and cannot change its structure...

In this particular case, the valeus are all Locals.

The first idea on this subject is to allow editing the original parameters when making changes to a prototype (LabVIEW or any other source).  Or as the sister idea to this one, allow to Copy & Pate the contents of a container!  See this thread!

Background --

When I have a step in a sequence file, and I change the Load Option of the step, and I go to Sequence File Properties and change the global Load Option to something other than "use step load option", I get red exclamation marks next to my load options on my steps to let me know that that value is overridden by the global sequence file option.

HOWEVER

if I look at the Result Recording Option, I see the step result recording option configured for that step.  But, that can be overridden by the Sequence Properties  -> "Disable Result Recording for All Steps".  I would expect that I would get a similar red exclamation mark next to the result recording option in my step properties configuration page to let me know that that value is overridden by the sequence option.  Possibly also update the settings column to include "result recording disabled" message like it would if I flagged just that step option to disable result recording (although I am a little more on the fence about this part)

On a similar but different topic, it is horribly hard to understand whether a sequence itself has configured to disable results recording.  I need to go through each sequence individually and look at the sequence properties.  Adding a settings column for the sequence list view would be nice.