Test device

Similar Questions

• compacRIO, use of Test device?

  Hello
  We are looking for automation in a test for devices... We are now using as a relay box and this as manual process... (measured with the oscilloscope...).
  The thing is, we want to make the process in LabVIEW... I thought to do a program which, by using the drivers for different device in LabVIEW (oscilloscope, GTI,...) and with perhaps compactRIO, we will have automatic process.

  Any suggestions? What do you think use CompactRIO?

  I am really new in this topic... so I really need help

  Thank you

  Elena

  What you propose as solution is being done around the world several times per day. So yes it is possible and it works very well if you know LabVIEW and what you do. We build a lot of such systems test every year for different customers.

• Skeptic of approvals test devices

  Just downloaded yesterday two instances of a release.  One for devices prior to 10.3.  I selected all devices except for the passport and the PlayBook.  Then I downloaded a second instance in the same version for devices that are 10.3 + and selected all devices, including the Passport, with the exception of the PlayBook that was not selected.  I know for a matter of doing the 10.3 version + works on the passport and the other version does not work (because it is not selected as device and does not intend to support Passport on that).

  Well Lo and behold I get an email denying my release, because the "card fills half the screen on the Passport.  Well that's really funny, since I use docklayouts for the version of passport with Ininifity width and height, so I don't know, because of my tests, which the 10.3 + version works on the passport and does not know this.

  Who can I speak to this topic?  It is absolutely ridiculous that this happens every time and I literally just download the same exact version and he'll get approval after the 2nd or 3rd attempt.  Looks like there is some problem with consistency on the end of approvals.

  Hi bmorr,

  Please send me a PM with your application name and ID.

  I would definitely consider this first hand and know why you received this denial.

  For the future, you can contact us using the assistance of the vendor page. This will create an easy cases to follow to ensure a quick response.

  https://developer.BlackBerry.com/blackberryworld/vendor_support.html

  powerfully.

  Bryan Van Engelen

  BlackBerry World

• Error in payment on the test device

  I use payment API 1.8. I wonder if test on the device, I should receive a payment error when you try to buy. Is it because only its in draft mode or because something does not work properly? I got an unknown error and also found digital assets.

  Hello

  You still see this problem?  If so, please tell me the name of your app and I'll look into it.

  Thank you

  Jordan

• Advice for the real world test device

  I keep running into problems of developing applications of BB where my code works perfectly well on all simulators, but as soon as I do the direct product of dozens of reports to be "unable to connect" is from (or another bug) flood from a random set of devices (the last wave is of Tower owners on Sprint and of course the app works fine on the tower for the Sprint Simulator using the same operating system) I am not able to go out and buy a Blackberry for all models on the carrier, and the labor to do these tests is beyond what my company can manage anyway.

  I'm looking for is advice of some experienced developers.  What do you do to get around this?  How do you verify that your code will run on real devices?  When you get hit by a real single bug, how to solve it?

  Thank you

  ~ NN

  Agree with Simon.

  deviceAnywhere is one that comes to mind, there are at least another company that was in the penultimate a DevCon, but I don't remember his name.

  Each new customer has a new experience with networking and you slowly build your code to handle the case.  Have to say that we are lucky, because we mainly deal with businesses, so use BES connections for most.  And the United Kingdom, there are only 5 carriers, so it is easy to code a quick test and determine what APN settings to use for each.

  Debug object, a method I would recommend is to write your own journal and provide your users with an easy way to email it to you.  Indeed, offer to send when you know you have a problem.

• App failed to load after the addition of test devices

  Hello

  I made a soft, did a dev ipa and installed on my iPad. Worked.

  But now I need to test it on another iPad as well.

  So I deleted the files mob Prov., added the new iPad and a new mob Prov. files.

  But now the app will install more.

  I made a new app ID > did not work

  I tried to do it again with only the original iPad app > even that no longer works.

  What can be the problem?

  Thank you!

  Restart your iPad and check out them. Also make sure the UDID match.

  Usually this error is due to certificates or UDID lack of files Mobile start-up.

  Recreate the certificates from scratch with the new app ID (do not use ' * ' in the App ID for example com.company. *). Make sure that you have unchecked iCloud in section ID App.

  Set up your devices (Add UDID and device name of the device in the devices section).

  Recreate App with new certificates.

  Remove old syncd APP in the iPad. Sync and install new .ipa

• Cannot install APK Android generated on test devices.

  Try to publish an AIR application from Flash following CC at the Android results in the error message is thrown.

  (Given the error "INSTALL_PARSE_FAILED_NO_CERTIFICATES" provided), it would seem that my certificate is not included when the APK is generated. The app seems to build very well (not), but the error is constantly raised during the installation.

  

  My AIR for Android settings are:

  

  I am running:

  Mac OS X 10.8.5

  Flash CC 13.0.1.808

  Adobe AIR 3.9.0.1200

  create a new signing certificate and try again.

• Test the application on a device, 8130 with no cell service

  This is my first post. Thanks for all the help I got already the search of this forum.

  I have an application that communicates with a web service over https.  It works fine on the Simulator and now I'd like to test it on a real device.

  I have a 8130 which had once been on the Sprint Network (no SIM card) but no longer service the active cell.  I would like to use as a testbed and potentially also collect other templates, but I don't want to have a service contract carrier of cell running on all my test devices.

  When I connect the 8130 to the PC with the USB cable, I can download my app and run it and even debugging, but the service book has no entries and the application cannot get to my intranet.  If I run the browser on the device, it says "your device has no entries in the directory service configuration is any browser"

  I tried to run the Desktop Manager and MDS Services Simulator.  They did not provide for any connectivity.

  What is the trick to provide similar internet/intranet connectivity to a physical device of Blackberry via USB without going through a cell phone

  the contracts? Is this possible?

  I don't have a BES.  Do I need to configure a BES in a test configuration?

  If this is not possible then how are you guys test your applications on a variety of actual devices?

  Thanks much for any help.

  Bill

  No matter what the mechanism of connection is used, you have only two original ways

  (1) thanks to a plan by the carrier data...

  (2) thanks to a WiFi hotspot...

  If your test device only supports WiFi too, so sorry you can not test...

  See you soon...

• Test Firefox OS for Tablet?

  Hello
  I heard that you're testing Firefox OS on tablets. I'm interested in new opportunities in mobile devices.
  I want to ask you: I could test it on my Tablet pipo w2f? I looked and it has similar settings as a tested device.
  Thanks for the quick reply

  PS: Sorry for my bad English, I'm from the Czech Republic

  Hello

  Yes, there is a project to create and test a version of Firefox OS for tablets.

  I recommend a reading of the wiki page that contains more information about what and how to get involved.

• Test WLAN (Wireless Connectiviry)

  Maybe someone use the wireless (WLAN/BT test). It has link to she - http://www.ni.com/rf/test/.

  Idon't understand one thing. The test function as "access point" during a test of DUT?

  For example, CMW500 (R & S), MT8860C (Anritsu) work as 'access' point in a trial of DUT.

  Alternatively, NI test may some other test modes HAD?

  Concerning

  Ruslan.

  Ruslan63,

  Short answer:

  The NI WLAN toolkit does not act as an access point.  It offers measurement analysis and generation of waveform in accordance with IEEE 802.11 a/b/g/n/j/p/ac/ah/af. You should be able to put your device in test mode and have transmitting packets or packets of report he received successfully.

  Longer answer (drawing of some notes I made):

  Two main methods of testing are signaling or signaling reduced and non-signalisation.  NEITHER supports non-signalisation. There are pros & cons of each.  Here is a quick table showing some differences.

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  	Signalling	Non-Signalisation
  Test speed	slow (mins)	fast (dry)
  Cost test instrument	high	low
  Development time	low	high
  Sw/test protocol stack	Yes	NO.
  Required unit test mode	NO.	Yes

  If you test the stack of protocol/software of your device, or if you have no way to control your device in test mode, you should use signs and cannot benefit from the advantages of signalling No.

  Today, the trend is to use no signage for regression tests during the validation and design of the product and production test. Developers buy the modules and chipsets including sellers have already validated the software stack and Protocol.  As long the developer not to waste the chip/module, risk of product failure is very low. Thus, as designers to put the chip/modules in a circuit, they use no signs of regression tests to quickly validate the functionality of RF (that is, the physical layer RF) of the chip/module has not been compromised. A subset of this very fast, parametric test can often be used for production testing. Yet once, as long as the production process is not spoil the chip/module, so the risk of failure is low.

  WLAN Wireless products, were among the first to use the test of no signage.  Almost all WLAN vendors have a driver to control the device in test mode. The general categories of control are similar (e.g. Tx N packets of data type given the power), but orders are not normalized between suppliers. The interface for the control of test device mode varies also (UART, USB, SDIO).

  Bluetooth has a standard interface based on the COM port and the command set is the same between vendors (NICE!). For this reason, NEITHER has been able to create libraries of control device as part of its suite of tests of Bluetooth.

  Control of the cellular device varies such as WLAN, and shifted in no signal test, they are now driving difficult due to high volumes and $$$. In addition, a test of cell signalling can take 2 to 3 minutes vs 10-20 sec.  And if the call "injects" you don't have many options other than to rerun the test.  And the cost of test equipment can be > x 5.

  Navigation receivers can acquire a signal satellites simulated (for example using NI GPS Toolkit) and quickly provide support noise measurement on N satellite signals detected.  While this isn't really non-signalisation, it represents the time savings based on the same approach necessary to lock onto satellite signals 'good' protocol/software stack has already been validated and the risk is low.  Waiting for a satellite lock may take minutes, which for many is unacceptable, especially in production tests.

  As the cost of the chips drop, functionality increases, the cost of the test becomes a greater % of product. Businesses now demand not signalling test improved support to control costs.  In my opinion, any provider module/chip that don't offer not supported no signaling tests will lose market share.  This should be the first question a request before company decided on a module/chip provider because the test costs can sometimes outweigh the cost of the chip!

  I worked with a variety of businesses

  (A) who have more expensive 0 - 2 signalling testers for design/validation, while having much more (x 10) testers no signage for the production test and regression tests.

  (B) who produce high mix low volume products where they have that 1-2 testers signage for all tests.  In their case the advantage of not having to spend time developing the device control code is the largest economies, and their time to test/debit is not important.

  (C) who have no way to control test (for example the sealed device) device of fashion and have only the option of test signals.

  NEITHER focuses on the company to a types.

  I hope this clarify things.

• CAA allows a single repository for a flow test video?

  R & D control devices of video "decoder" I want to start internal treatment of our TESTED device, then using a PXI-1491 to analyze video output digital (HDMI) of the object to be measured for a large number of seconds (180 seconds or more for example).

  The video that is being analyzed will have content static image. The amount of time I want to analyze the test data flow after doing some stuff on the object to be measured is variable, but I always expect it to be quite long.

  Currently, it seems that I have a stream of reference containing exactly the same number of images that flow of test data.

  This makes the reference vbf very large files. My test needs include a large number of resolutions that must be tested through the object to measure. With an extensive library of vbf very large files is logistically difficult, it would be much easier to maintain such a library made up of records of reference unique framework "Golden" instead.  Also, since my analyze the needs of variable time depending on the test configuration and USE treatment options, it would be better for me to have a single reference or frame and validating a large number of images of test against it.

  Given that the analyzed video will have static images, it is possible to run a video stream test against a framework unique (reduced reference) instead of having a complete reference stream frame by frame?

  Do exactly what you ask is not the design of the CAA.  Of course, the best solution that we recommend when working with video test is a high-capacity hard drive, probably in a RAID configuration for more space and better performance, then just take a reference however with 10 k images and do what you originally suggested.

  A method to achieve what you are looking for without using a big reference file is, thanks to the treatment in offline mode.  Allows you to acquire 10,000 consecutive images, what I understand is one of your concerns, and then afterwards run it through the parser.  You'd still be a type of action loop TestStand and LabVIEW.  The process would be:

  (1) acquire your your provider source 1491 with none of the processors and registration of the media stream to the disk.

  Loop:

  (2) loading CAA with the provider buffer of disk instead of the 1491, the buffer to the disk file will be the acquisition by the top

  (3) point the boot image to your current location.

  (4) perform your processor with the results.

  (5) repeat and iterate to a new location of boot image

  This process will be much slower that you load and unload resources every time.  If you choose to go in that direction, a better implementation would be to perhaps consider a 100 images at once, or a number greater than 1, because the processing time for handling additional images will be less loading and unloading PQA.

  Your second option will require more work outside the AQP to implement custom through a personalized user processor features.  Actually allows you to find a way to treat the incoming data in ways you would like.  To do this, you will need:

  (1) LabVIEW 2011 - personalized by the user for CAA treatment cannot be developed in LabVIEW 2011.  If you are under contract of SSP by OR and not only 2012 LabVIEW for the moment, you still have access to older versions.

  (2) vision Development Module - for your image processing

  (3) a video source unencrypted - due to the limitations of the HDCP, we cannot expose the treatment of the user of raw video stream.

  You would in this user processor:

  (1) load as your static frame in directly, you wouldn't need to use media Ref input

  Loop

  (2) load the current image of the incoming video table

  (3) measure your video with the Vision, probably PNSR or SSIM function since they are currently measures only 2 referenced in CAA.

  Learn more about Custom User Proessor had, in the CAA to help discover: NI CAA Executive and Board Configuration OR PQA > NI PQA tabs > tab processors > customizable output processors > processor as user: http://digital.ni.com/public.nsf/allkb/514058CC830D86EE86257881004CB45F

• How would you do that? 2 case of a test station

  I have a sequecne that works great stand alone, that now we want to add another test power to the system. It is not as easy as it may seem, here are the conditions and what we intend to do. I need to have either 2 instances of the running program or configure the sequence in batch or in parallel, but I'm a little confused on how to do it properly.

  Features of the system:

  • 2 - test fixtures with 24 pieces in each. The sequence works fine now with only one test. I decided not to do a batch with these 24 pieces because I have a single DAQ mx read for all of the object to be measured and there is no need to follow every 24 parts. they're all to fail.
  • The two test devices will use the same DAQmx device for measurements. Compaq DAQ with USB (device 1 is for the test set-up 1 and 2 is for the test set-up 2)
  • They share a DIO Board for some discreet signals.

  My questions:

  1. Socket 1 or 2 Socket may have parts on them separately. A my load 1 operator and not the other and start the test. During the test, they can load up to 2 and start it too. Both must run exercise but share the Compaq DAQ device
  2. How do you run the shared resource (lock during the measurement, semifore?)
  3. Is this possible at all?
  4. Can I run two instances of the same UI? It would be the ulimate. With 2 points of entry and 2 displays for the recall of the UI to write to.

  Thanks for any input you can give me.

  You can have several instances of TestStand running almost any version.

  Here are a few options:

  1. run two user interfaces and usage and asterisk to prefix your lock names (for example "* DAQmxDevice").  This lock will then share in all of engines.  In fact all steps of synchronization may use the * to precede the name of share it across engines.

  2. create a custom with 2 managers running user interface and then 2 sets of views of implementation on the front panel.  When they execute you can somehow indicate the file in sequence (with a UIMessage) whose execution were fired off the coast.  Then, he will know which set of DUT it is testing.  Use of the * tip for your locks.

  3. what you should be making use of the parallel model.  It takes care of everything in your needs right out of the gate.  In other words, the user can run what socket they want from the parallel dialog box.  Use the normal locking mechanisms.  I've attached an example.

  You will get the best performance and control of option 3.  Suffice to say.

• Test access Client for F5 Big - IP server

  Is it possible that I can test a separate table of CASES in my production environment. I have 2 the Client Access servers in production using Microsoft NLB. To test, I added 2 servers in CASE more but when the servers are up, the clients are connecting to them. I would like to block client connections and that he only accepts my test devices. Is there a way to do this?

  Thanks in advance.

  This issue is beyond the scope of this site (for consumers) and to be sure, you get the best (and fastest) reply, we have to ask either on Technet (for IT Pro) or MSDN (for developers)
  *

  http://social.technet.Microsoft.com/forums/en-us/home s/fr-U.S./Accueil
  http://social.msdn.Microsoft.com/Forum
  
  
  If you give us a link to the new thread we can point to some resources it

• Linked my token BBID signing keys and now I can't deploy on the device

  Finally tied my token BBID to my old signature keys, curiously, now whenever I have add a device or try to deploy one it looks like for the device, validate test the password but then said that it couldn't connect.  I tried to restart the computer, deleting and creating a debugging token, I tried to restart the testing devices as well.

  Nothing seems to work.

  Is there anything else I can try that I didn't think?

  I could solve the problem by removing and reinstalling Momentics. Not sure as to why this happened in the first place, but at least it has set.

• UI elements were hidden and floating on the devices of 720 x 720

  Finding this really weird, I test my App on QWERTY 720 x 720, a single page, it's a leaf with a Page and a title bar of FreeForm, container with children of two buttons and a display of images, for some reason any verticalAlignment value button: VerticalAlignment.Bottom is not the screen and the screen actually scrolls upward (No. ScrollView in the sheet of all well-founded) even on Simulator and test device (classic friends)

  (Not related this hidden):

      Container{
          id: cont
          horizontalAlignment: HorizontalAlignment.Fill
          verticalAlignment: VerticalAlignment.Fill
          layout: DockLayout {}
  
          Button{
              horizontalAlignment: HorizontalAlignment.Fill
              verticalAlignment: VerticalAlignment.Top
              text: "Stop Alarm"
          }
          Button{
              horizontalAlignment: HorizontalAlignment.Fill
              verticalAlignment: VerticalAlignment.Bottom
              text: "Snooze"
          }
          ImageView {
              id: alarmimg
              horizontalAlignment: HorizontalAlignment.Center
              verticalAlignment: VerticalAlignment.Center
  
          }  
  
  }
  

  

  Any experienced this before?

  It is the title bar which "allows" scrolling on 720 x 720 devices. You could play with the different settings of the title/Page (mainly the visibility and the scrollBehavior) bar