Debating using the C++ TestStand Operator Interface

[mrbean]

I am investigating the TestStand Operator Interfaces available and I'm not sure which way to go.  Most of our tests are going to be developed in LabVIEW, but I don't think that has any bearing on the OI.  We have CVI and LabVIEW in house, but I've heard good things about the the C++ operator interface (as they relate to speed).  I have several comments/questions that hopefully will help me determine which way to go.

1) We're working with another company on separate applications, but we're both using NI TestStand.  The customer would like our OIs to look and feel the same.  We can get our teamate's .UIR file, but we'd still have to develop the code behind it.

2) We're developing the tests in LabVIEW, but I was quite overwhelmed by my first pass look at the TestStand LabVIEW OI.  I really have no idea how to modify the windows to match our teamate's .UIR

3) If we were to use the C++ (MFC) TestStand OI, do we have to use Visual C++ as our IDE?

4) With the C++ OI, what is the CVI counterpart to the .UIR.

5) We're trying to use the GOOP Wizard (from VISTA - VI Engineering) which allows us to design in UML (using their UML Modeller) and generate LabVIEW code (using the GOOP Wizard).  Due to this capability, we're trying to design our app with an Object Oriented approach.  Given that, do you have any recommendations (i.e. trade studies) as to which operator interface to use?

6) Do you know, if we chose the C++ OI, is the UML available for that design?  Or, could that code be reverse engineered such that the class relationships would be better understood?

[RayFarmer]

Hi mrbean,

Are you using TS 3.x?

1) It would seem that your counterparts are using CVI to developed the TS OI. It would make sense if you both used CVI, then there would be no problem with the look and feel aspect. Also, if there is the possible of code sharing, this would help in development costs etc.

2) Not sure if you looked at the code of the old style OI interface or the new style OI. The new style has a lot of the functionality hidden in the activeX components. The LabVIEW wouldn't beable to use the UIR file, you would have to make the front panels of the top level vi (Sequence Display and the Execution Display) look like the CVI panels. Their appearance would be close but not identical. The C++ OI you are never going to get that OI to look like the others in appearance.

3) I dont think you have to use the IDE, you can use makefile to build the application. but it would be a lot easies using the IDE. I'm not a regular user of Visual Studio, so I can offer much more that would help.

4)There's a resource file that you have as the source but you dont have a seperate file, such as the UIR file for runtime (exe file).

5)You can reverse engineer the source code for the C++ OI, I believe you would have the tools as part of the Visual Studio package, or if you have something like Rational Rose.

If you want to to use (G)OOP, this would rule out using the CVI OI and pointing you to the C++ OI. You could do the LabVIEW using the GOOP but you are looking at completely doing the labview code from scratch.

Hope this helps

Ray Farmer