NI TestStand Idea Exchange

Community Browser
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Post an idea

As NI has acknowledged (here, here) for more than 5 years, the Build .sql File button creates schemas with errors.  This is even true for the default schemas in the left of the dialog.  Would be great if NI would go ahead and correct this.  BTW - to create default tables in the meantime, a developer should use a SQL file located here:  <TestStand>\Components\Models\TestStandModels\Database

 

 

TestStand Database Options Dialog.png

Allow for Additional Results to be selectively added to the reports of your choosing instead of all-or-none.

 

Currently:

1 - Step settings.PNG 

 

 

 

Proposed:

A - Compiled Step Settings.png

 

B - Compiled Report Select.png

Dear,

 

Browsing through NI documentation I could not see whether logging test results in STDF format is already available or not, and for which SW versions.

I believe there must be some updates for NI document (from 2007) under the following link:

http://digital.ni.com/public.nsf/allkb/BDEEB8C8EBA6D89D862572E400438F74

 

Could anyone please clarify the status?

Background:

Currently we are looking into the this as it might be very interesting topic to introduce in our production, where we have the following SW running:

- NI Teststand 4.2.1 & 2.0.1

- LabView 2009 SP1

 

Best regards

Dejan Lisinac

Hello,

 

It would be nice to be abble to define the report file name "using tags". Smiley Happy

 

For the moment the Report name is created automatically. You can't easily change the order of the filed you want to see in the filename.Smiley Sad

You can only modify the date/time position.

 

I would like to see something like this :

 

Reportname = [%T<YYYY_mm_DD HH_MM_SS>]_[TestSocket]_[UUT].txt

 

ReportOptions.png

 

Thanks.

 

PS : I am using TestStand 2012 ... perhaps this already exists in TS 2013 ?

 

Manu.

Hello,

 

Everytime you want to update the UUT container, the report generation sequence has to be revalidated. Smiley Mad

 

Please modify these behaviour ! Smiley Tongue

 

These behaviour could be perhaps modified by adding a sub container in the UUT container : UUT.Custom

These container could be "non typed" in order to be customizable without side effect. Smiley Very Happy

 

Thanks a lot!

Hi,

 

It would be nice to have another group of the steps.

 

--send an email,

--send a notification to the syslog server,

--sent a notification to the event log.

 

It could improve sequence reporting and notifications. The coding these functionalities in the modules no longer wouldn't be needed. 

Using the stock reportgen_xml.seq file, the text value of the XML node shouldn't contain the characters < or >:

 

http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#syntax

 

When using LabVIEW VI's to parse this, you (rightly) get errors, so it's incredibly difficult to just search and replace the offending characters with their XML escapes. 

 

Example node contents from the XML report:

 

<Prop Name='ReportText' Type='String' Flags='0x400000'>
                            <Value><![CDATA[{0} Locals.i = 0; Locals.i < 2; Locals.i += 1]]></Value>
                        </Prop>

1) TestStand functions Time() and Date() only output local format; they should support both local and UTC format. (Like LabVIEW's Format Date/Time String)

 
2) TestStand configuration options should have a setting(s) for:
report time format local / UTC
datalogging time format local / UTC

 

 

TS does not allow the ability to rename steps that are of the Flow Control type (i.e. If, Else, For, While, etc.). In a report, these generic names are then used, making it very difficult to know what condition the step was evaluating to determine whether to enter or continue within the flow control block. A step name would normally give the reader of a report some indication as to what is being tested or reported on. This is not the case for these step types.

 

For example, an "If" step that is determining whether a condition is met (and whether to enter into the subsequent steps within the flow control block) simply shows up in the report as:

Step Status Measurement Units Limits
Low Limit High Limit Comparison Type
If {True}  Done        

 

There is no indication of what it evaluated to determine it was True, meaning someone reading the report has no idea what the purpose of the step is. As designer of the test, I can look through the sequence to determine exactly what it was doing, but a report is a useful tool to be able to show to someone not familiar with the test and allow them to be able to see what happened. A report gives the reader the history of the test. Without knowing what a step is for, a lot of the "story" being told by the report is either lost or becomes much harder to follow.

 

I would assume there is a reason as to why these step types are not able to be renamed, but I'm not familiar with what that would be. It would be nice to be able to modify, or at least add to, the step name so that the report gives some indication of what it was that it evaluated. If that is not possible, there should be a simple way to include the parameter/expression being evaluated with the step name in the report. This can be somewhat accomplished using other methods, such as the Additional Results of the Properties tab, but this is not intuitive or clean and I would think this behavior should actually be default, not something the user has to manually create and enable.

 

Regards,

Have an option in Report Options to modify report format. 

 

1. A new tab "Report Format" which can provide the option to generate report in default mode (I call it vertical) or customize to generate in horizontal format.

The Report Format tab can have defined set of options for user to enable in the report. The horizontal format would look like something similar to as shown in the attachment "Report_Horizontal.jpg".

 

2. Have a checkbox to generate report in Horizontal Format on the "Contents" tab. When selected the report will be generated with the similar table columns shown in the attachment "Report_Horizontal.jpg".

 

 

Download All

In the report options, when you have selected to include measurements and insert graphs, it would be nice if TestStand could provide an option to display multiple numeric limit test measurements in graphical form. To expand on that, when the value goes outside of a limit, it would be nice to have a red point on the graph to show where this occurred at. 

 

mnlt.jpg

If have to run 10 different UUTs for each group, the TestStand report should contain a either mass header or footer that shows the UUT group statistics, Example: 10 UUTs total run, 7 Passed 3 Failed, in It would seem almost obvious that the TestStand report would contain this information.UUTGroupResults.JPG

 

 

A nice feature of reporting is the ability to form the report file pathname using an expression.  However, since the path is resolved before the client Sequence file is executed, you cannot use properties populated in the client sequence file as part of the report pathname. Currently the only way to accomplish this without modifying the model or reportOptions callback is by including the <UUTStatus> macro in the path expression, which enables a portion of the process model which copies the report to a new path based on the result of the UUT:

 1.png

 

I propose that we add an option to force the report path to be re-evaluated after the client sequence to allow users to include properties evaluated in the client sequence file in the report file path without needing to include the <UUTStatus> macro.  (basically exposing the ReportOptions.NewFileNameForEachUUTStatus property in the dialog)

 

2.png

Currently, to export properties which are part of an array, such as the limits of a multiple numeric limit test, you have to specify each index of the array separately, like in the first screen shot, or else you get all of the raw XML, which is difficult to interpret and use. 

 

exports2.JPG

 

exports1.JPG

 

 

This is both labor intensive and unituitive. . If instead we had the option to export the array with the "?" and have it parse the information out like in picture 1, it would be much simpler to use.

 

Regards,

 

Kyle Mozdzyn

Applications Engineering

National Instruments 

It would be nice if Teststand came with a pre built sequence or example to Generate a Test Report of UUT Results that are already in the database.

Because a customer asked me about it... And in looking around on the forums I'm surprised there's no opensource 3rd party solution yet to fill this gap Smiley Happy

 

TS has the ability via that little .ocx component to 'ploty' via the graphcontrol tool in an HTML or XML report.  But after many years, there is no 'plotxy'.   As this seems to be a common need for customers, maybe this could be rolled in with other changes? (if it isn't already?)

It would be helpful to be able to provide a regular expression (like Labview Match Pattern) as a string value test limit.  We often look for a pattern of data within a string rather than a constant.

Maybe also a regular expression function within the built in functions within TestStand expressions would be a help also.  This could provide more flexibility if a user needs it.  For example adding option to gain match position, and match length as well as give the option to search in reverse and ignore case.

Why not make it possible for Teststand to generate reports in PDF format?

It would make it a lot easier to send a testreport of a specific board to people not connected to the actual tester.

 

Today we use XML but this requires the stylesheet to be present on the readers pc.

Graphs are also not showing correct unless you do a manual setup of the settings in Internet Explore.

 

PDF would make my life a lot simpler

 

/Michael

 

The default process models internally enable/disable the PostResultListEntry callbacks in ways that aren't intuitive to users seeking to quickly edit a callback to customize/override behavior. 

 

It would be nice to see that instead of simply turning off the callback (leaving users to wonder why their override doesn't work like all the others, except if they read the help/ or think to turn on 'on the fly reporting') as part of the process model based on the options....

 

(1) leave the callbacks on and move the 'on the fly' logic into an IF defined section within the sequence

 

(2) make a second PostResultListEntrys  style callback that's explicitly for 'on the fly' that is in addition to other PostResultListEntry behaviors that a user may want to enable/add.

 

I've had several customers now who have designed custom event loggers / reports around the ProcessModelPostStep callback (with some rather convoluted logic where they dig for results)  simply due to the fact that they couldn't understand why their PostResultListEntry callbacks didn't work.... or that they didn't feel comfortable editing the process model in order to remove the logic that force the callback to be disabled when not 'on the fly' and also keep the 'on the fly' reporting unharmed if they want it later.

 

Cheers,

 

Elaine R.

Would like to have the choice of "No Comparison" for a string value test like there is for numeric value test.

 

jvh