Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[NEW-FEATURE]Analog inspector Master/Dummy mode #610

Open
KrisztianOlah opened this issue May 11, 2023 · 4 comments
Open

[NEW-FEATURE]Analog inspector Master/Dummy mode #610

KrisztianOlah opened this issue May 11, 2023 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@KrisztianOlah
Copy link
Collaborator

Premise
When setting up process settings for master references one has to set all inspectors to exclude result in order to check which way it needs to fail. Then set every inspector with the correct "failed" range. On one project I have 15 analouge ranges per reference with 4 references with some designed to fail whilest some destined to pass due to physical/mechanical constraints which took about an hour to set up for all references.

Proposed solution
A tick box on analouge inspector's UI to flip the result for Master pieces on demand, which will use the same range as the OK parts but will fail if it is within range and will pass if it is outside of range which should markedly reduce (programmer) time spent on production on tester stations. On balance this would be a simple a quick solution that would also be very useful for the user.

Alternatives considered

  • using continue and evaluating fail results individually. On my project this solution would require operator to keep a table describing what dummy should fail what tests, which is unfeasable. Also, it would require additional code as this goes against the requirement of not continuing after a failed test.
  • adding relational signs (in a combobox for simplicity) to process data to more accurately describe what ranges are acceptable. This would complicate UI, but would be workable. It would require considerable work on TcoInspectors though.
  • Changing behaviour of failing a test to show failed test, but also marking it correct in case of some dummy references. This could be a larger overhaul, but usage would more intuitive.

I'm happy to work on this provided we can determine the ideal direction after some constructive discussion.

@PTKu
Copy link
Member

PTKu commented May 11, 2023

This popped up several times already... we should do it... @peterbarancek?

@KrisztianOlah
Copy link
Collaborator Author

/cib

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

@peterbarancek
Copy link
Collaborator

hi, i will handle it

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants