Multi-instrument cooperative measurement and control response machine automatic test method and related device

Abstract

The application discloses a multi-instrument cooperative measurement and control response machine automatic testing method and related device, and relates to the technical field of automatic testing. The method identifies a test instrument model and loads corresponding program control instruction sets from an external instruction set configuration file, executes atomic test step sequences arranged according to a work flow configuration file in parallel, executes multi-level attribution determination according to attribution clues other than frame identifiers when the frame identifiers of data frames of multiple measured products are the same, isolates and stores product data, and places a radio frequency link in a full reflection interlocking state before power-on, monitors power supply abnormalities during operation, and turns off power according to a preset turn-off sequence. The application has the advantages of flexible instrument adaptation, accurate multi-product parallel test data attribution, and safe unattended operation.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of automated testing technology, and in particular to an automated testing method and related apparatus for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders. Background Technology

[0002] The telemetry, tracking, and command (TT&C) transponder is a critical payload in the spacecraft's TT&C and data transmission link. Before delivery, it must undergo functional verification and performance evaluation, including radio frequency performance testing, telemetry and remote control function testing, and environmental adaptability testing such as temperature cycling. These tests typically require multiple test instruments, such as spectrum analyzers, signal generators, programmable power supplies, programmable attenuators, and coaxial switches, to work together and operate continuously under long-term conditions such as temperature cycling. To increase production capacity, it is often necessary to test multiple units of the same model simultaneously.

[0003] Because the tests are numerous, have long cycles, and are often conducted unattended, improper control of the power supply, power-on, and RF link switching of the product under test can damage the product or instrument. Therefore, such tests place comprehensive demands on the instrument versatility, data reliability, parallel processing capabilities, and operational safety of the test solution.

[0004] Existing testing solutions struggle to balance the aforementioned comprehensive requirements. While manual operation and data recording of each instrument are adaptable to different instruments and processes, they are inefficient and cannot be performed unattended for extended periods. Automated methods, such as directly integrating instrument drivers and test procedures into the test program, improve efficiency, but the driver logic is tied to the instrument model, requiring program modifications when changing manufacturers or models. Furthermore, the test procedures are fixed as one-time scripts, necessitating reprogramming for adjustments and making recovery from interruptions difficult. Moreover, the identical frame identifiers of data frames uploaded from multiple identical products via the bus make it impossible to distinguish their origin based solely on frame content, necessitating a return to sequential testing of each instrument. Monitoring anomalies during operation still relies on manual supervision. This coupling means that instrument versatility, data reliability, parallel processing capabilities, and operational security cannot be simultaneously satisfied in a multi-instrument, multi-model, long-term unattended testing scenario for transponders. Summary of the Invention

[0005] In order to simultaneously consider instrument versatility, data reliability, parallel processing capability, and operational safety in the testing scenario of multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders, where multiple instruments of the same model are used in parallel and the operation is unattended for a long period of time, this application provides an automated testing method and related device for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders.

[0006] Firstly, this application provides an automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders, which adopts the following technical solution:

[0007] An automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders includes:

[0008] S1. Connect multiple test instruments, send an instrument identification query command to each of the test instruments to obtain the instrument model, and load the programmable instruction set determined by the preset matching strategy for the instrument model from the external instruction set configuration file;

[0009] S2. Load the workflow configuration file, which contains a sequence of atomic test steps arranged in the execution order of multiple atomic test steps;

[0010] S3. Before executing the atomic test step sequence, a startup pre-check is performed. The startup pre-check includes verifying the online status of each test instrument, and before powering on the product under test, the RF switch in the RF link is placed in the total reflection state, and the RF link is read back to confirm that it is not conducting before powering on the product under test.

[0011] S4. The atomic test steps are executed in sequence according to the atomic test steps, and test data is collected from multiple products under test via multiple controller area network buses in parallel with the main execution process through multiple background execution threads.

[0012] S5. For the collected test data, if the frame identifiers of the data frames transmitted by multiple products under test via the controller local area network bus are the same, perform multi-level attribution determination according to the attribution clue other than the frame identifier to obtain the attribution determination result, and store the test data according to the attribution determination result respectively, wherein the test data of the determined attribution product is stored in isolation according to the determined attribution product.

[0013] S6. The power supply of the product under test is monitored throughout the entire process of executing the atomic test sequence. In response to the detection of a power supply abnormality, power-off protection is performed according to a preset shutdown sequence.

[0014] By adopting the above technical solutions, the instrument driving instructions are extracted from the test program and converted into a configurable external instruction set configuration file, so that adaptation can be completed without modifying the program when changing instruments from different manufacturers or models; the test process is abstracted into a programmable sequence of atomic test steps, so that process adjustment and breakpoint resumption no longer rely on reprogramming; for the characteristic that multiple products of the same model have the same data frame identifier, multi-level attribution determination is performed based on attribution clues other than the frame identifier and stored in isolation according to product, so that multiple products can be tested in parallel while the data attribution remains accurate; and RF total reflection interlock and power supply anomaly monitoring provide safety protection before and after power-on and throughout the entire operation, so that the entire test process can run under long-term unattended conditions, thus simultaneously taking into account instrument versatility, data reliability, parallel processing capability and operational safety in the test scenario of multi-instrument collaboration and multiple products of the same model in parallel.

[0015] Optionally, loading the set of programmable instructions determined by the preset matching strategy for the instrument model in step S1 includes the following sub-steps:

[0016] S11. Search for a programmable instruction set that precisely matches the instrument model in the external instruction set configuration file; in response to finding the precisely matching programmable instruction set, load the precisely matching programmable instruction set.

[0017] S12. In response to the failure to find the exact matching programmable instruction set, search for a programmable instruction set of the same series with the same model prefix as the instrument model in the external instruction set configuration file; in response to the finding of the programmable instruction set of the same series, load the programmable instruction set of the same series.

[0018] S13. In response to the absence of the same series of programmable instruction sets, load the preset default programmable instruction set.

[0019] By adopting the above technical solution, a three-level matching strategy consisting of precise matching, same-series prefix matching, and default loading is used to ensure that instruments with preset models are precisely adapted, and instruments without preset models can also be connected by using the same series instruction set or the default instruction set, thereby improving the coverage and fault tolerance of instrument adaptation.

[0020] Optionally, in step S4, a retry count and a failure strategy are configured for each atomic test step, wherein the failure strategy is to skip and continue execution or to immediately terminate execution; and after each atomic test step is completed, the execution progress is saved to disk, and a baseline task list signature is generated for the atomic test step sequence and saved to disk; when resuming execution from a breakpoint, a current task list signature is generated, and if the current task list signature is inconsistent with the baseline task list signature already saved to disk, resuming execution is refused.

[0021] By adopting the above technical solution, the number of retry times and failure strategy are configured for each atomic test step and the execution progress is written to disk, so that occasional exceptions can be automatically retried or skipped according to the strategy. After the test is interrupted, it can also be resumed from the breakpoint by means of task list signature verification, avoiding the termination of the entire test or the continuation of the erroneous process due to single-step failure.

[0022] Optionally, the multi-level attribution determination performed in S5 includes the following sub-steps:

[0023] S51. Determine the first home candidate, the second home candidate, and the third home candidate respectively, wherein when the product under test is explicitly specified in the currently executed atomic test step, the explicitly specified product under test is used as the first home candidate; when the product under test is not explicitly specified in the currently executed atomic test step, the first home candidate is empty; one or more products under test connected to the controller area network bus from which the data frame comes are used as the second home candidate; and the product under test connected to the power supply channel from which the test data comes is used as the third home candidate.

[0024] S52. In response to the intersection of the tested products pointed to by each of the non-empty attribution candidates being a single tested product, the single tested product is taken as the attribution product determined in the attribution determination result.

[0025] By adopting the above technical solution, three candidate attributions are obtained according to the explicit specification of the workflow steps, the bus from which the data frame comes, and the power supply channel from which the test data comes. The product attribution is determined by the intersection of the products under test pointed to by each non-empty candidate. This allows multiple candidates obtained by reverse lookup from the bus to converge into a single attribution even when the data frame identifiers are the same and multiple products share the same bus for parallel uploading. This provides an accurate attribution basis for the parallel testing of multiple products of the same model.

[0026] Optionally, in step S5, in response to the intersection of the tested products pointed to by each of the non-empty attribution candidates being empty, the attribution candidates corresponding to the attribution clues in a failed state are excluded, the failed state including the controller local area network bus being in a time-division multiplexing state; in response to the intersection of the tested products pointed to by the remaining non-empty attribution candidates after exclusion being a single tested product, the single tested product is taken as the attribution product determined in the attribution determination result; in response to the intersection of the tested products pointed to by the remaining non-empty attribution candidates after exclusion still being empty, the attribution determination result is determined as attribution doubtful, and the test data with the attribution determination result of attribution doubtful are stored in the review buffer.

[0027] By adopting the above technical solution, when the intersection of the tested products referred to by each candidate is empty, the ownership clues that are in a failed state such as time-division multiplexing are excluded, and then the intersection is used for adjudication. The ownership of conflicting marks that still cannot be resolved are stored in the review buffer, so that the ownership determination will not be systematically misjudged due to the failure of a single clue under complex working conditions such as bus time-division multiplexing.

[0028] Optionally, in S5, for test data whose attribution determination result is a determined product, when the Controller Area Network (CLAN) bus from which the data frame originates is connected to only a single product under test, the attribution determination result of the test data is injected back into the execution context of the workflow configuration file, so that subsequent atomic test steps can directly determine the product under test for the test data from the CLAN bus based on the execution context; for test data stored in the verification buffer, the values ​​of each attribution clue corresponding to the test data are retained, and in response to the release of the time-division multiplexing state of the CLAN bus, or the subsequent atomic test steps explicitly specifying the same product under test as the second or third attribution candidate of the test data, the multi-level attribution determination is re-executed for the test data in the verification buffer, and a manual verification list is output for test data whose attribution is still questionable at the end of the test round.

[0029] By adopting the above technical solution, the confirmed attribution back-injection workflow execution context is made available for direct use by data on the same bus only when the bus connects to a single product. This avoids systemic misattribution caused by using a single judgment result in a shared bus scenario. Furthermore, questionable data is re-judged based on various causes such as time-sharing reuse or subsequent explicit specification. For data that is still questionable at the end of the round, a manual review list is generated. This ensures that attribution uncertainty gradually decreases as the test progresses, and questionable data of various causes are re-judged or manually reviewed instead of being directly discarded.

[0030] Optionally, the security monitoring in S6 includes the following sub-steps:

[0031] S61. Collect the power supply voltage of each product under test and the total power of each product group in turn, wherein each power supply channel supplies power to one product under test;

[0032] S62. In response to the voltage deviation of the power supply voltage relative to the preset voltage setting value exceeding a preset voltage deviation threshold, or the total power exceeding a preset power threshold, and the voltage deviation or the total power exceeding the limit still being established after a preset stabilization period, it is determined that the power supply abnormality has occurred, wherein the preset stabilization period is used to distinguish between transient fluctuations at the moment of power-on and continuous power supply abnormalities.

[0033] S63. In response to determining that the power supply abnormality has occurred, for power supply abnormalities caused by the voltage deviation exceeding the preset voltage deviation threshold, the power supply abnormality is located to the corresponding single product under test according to the one-to-one correspondence between each power supply channel and the product under test; for power supply abnormalities caused by the total power exceeding the preset power threshold, if a single product under test cannot be located, the power supply abnormality is classified into the product group whose total power exceeds the preset power threshold.

[0034] S64. In response to locating a single product under test and the other products under test in the product group to which the single product under test belongs not experiencing the power supply abnormality, power is cut off only to the power supply channel connected to the located single product under test; in response to not locating a single product under test, or multiple products under test in the same product group experiencing the power supply abnormality successively, the product group whose total power exceeds the preset power threshold is determined as the product group to be powered off, and all products under test in the product group to be powered off are powered off according to the preset shutdown sequence.

[0035] By adopting the above technical solution, the continuous over-threshold judgment distinguishes between power-on transients and real power supply anomalies. For channel-level anomalies where the voltage deviation exceeds the threshold, the anomaly is located to a single product according to the one-to-one correspondence between the power supply channel and the product. For group-level anomalies where the total power exceeds the threshold, the anomaly is transferred to a group for handling when a single product cannot be located. This ensures that when a single product is abnormal, only its power supply channel is cut off without damaging normal products in the same group. The entire group is only powered off when there is a total power anomaly or when the anomaly cannot be located. This balances the timeliness of protection with the continuity of parallel testing.

[0036] Optionally, in step S1, in response to loading a series of programmable instruction sets with the same prefix as the instrument model, a probe instruction is sent to the corresponding test instrument, and the return data format of the probe instruction is checked to see if it falls within the expected value range of the loaded series of programmable instruction sets. If the return data format does not fall within the expected value range, a preset default programmable instruction set is loaded instead.

[0037] By adopting the above technical solution, the compatibility of instruction sets loaded with prefix matching of the same series is verified by probe instructions, and the default instruction set is rolled back when incompatible, thus avoiding the execution of the entire round of testing with the wrong instruction set.

[0038] Optionally, in step S6, the preset shutdown sequence includes multiple shutdown steps executed sequentially. In response to the failure of any shutdown step, a manual handling prompt for the failed shutdown step is output, and the remaining shutdown steps are executed to complete the power outage protection.

[0039] By adopting the above technical solution, when the shutdown step fails, a prompt for manual handling is output and the remaining shutdown steps are completed, thus avoiding the dangerous state of power failure being silently ignored.

[0040] Optionally, in S5, in response to the time-division multiplexing of the product under test causing a time period switch, before handing over the shared test instrument and RF link to the product under test in the next time period, the data buffer is cleared, the shared test instrument and RF link are reset to the baseline state, and it is confirmed that there is no residual data.

[0041] By adopting the above technical solution, the buffer is cleared and the shared test instruments and RF links are reset to the baseline before the time-division multiplexing period is switched, so as to avoid residual data from the previous period from contaminating the test of the next period.

[0042] Optionally, in S4, during the process of collecting the test data via each of the controller area network buses, in response to a data frame loss on one of the controller area network buses, the test data of the corresponding product under test is marked as incomplete, and the test data marked as incomplete is distinguished from the complete test data during isolated storage.

[0043] By adopting the above technical solution, when a data frame is missing on a bus during data acquisition, the corresponding product data is marked as incomplete and stored separately from the complete data, thus preventing missing frame data from being archived as a complete result.

[0044] Optionally, in step S4, for remote control commands sent simultaneously in a dual-channel redundant manner, the execution receipts returned by each of the two channels are received, and one of the execution receipts from the two channels is selected as a confirmation receipt according to a preset selection rule, so as to avoid the remote control command being executed repeatedly.

[0045] By adopting the above technical solution, confirmation receipts are selected according to the one-choice rule for remote control commands sent simultaneously through dual channels with redundancy, thus avoiding the repeated execution of the same remote control command and the resulting side effects.

[0046] Optionally, in step S4, before resuming from the breakpoint, the startup pre-check is re-executed and each of the test instruments is restored to the configuration state corresponding to the breakpoint according to the execution progress already saved on disk. The run is resumed only after confirming that the configuration state of each of the test instruments is consistent with the breakpoint.

[0047] By adopting the above technical solution, a pre-inspection is performed before resuming the run from the point of interruption, and each instrument is restored to the configuration state at the point of interruption before resuming the run, thus avoiding invalid data due to the drift of the on-site state.

[0048] Optionally, in S4, before retrying the atomic test step according to the number of retries, the corresponding recovery sub-sequence is executed according to the failure type of the atomic test step. The recovery sub-sequence includes reconnecting the corresponding test instrument when the failure type is instrument communication interruption, and resetting the corresponding test instrument to the baseline state when the failure type is instrument status abnormality.

[0049] By adopting the above technical solution, before retrying, a recovery sub-sequence such as reconnection or reset is executed according to the failure type, making it easier for steps that fail due to communication interruption or abnormal status to be successfully retried after recovery.

[0050] Optionally, in S4, during the execution of the atomic test step sequence, the conduction status of the RF link and the safety monitoring result of the power supply are aggregated into a safety status, and the safety status is queried before each atomic test step is executed. If the safety status does not meet the preset release conditions, the execution of the atomic test step is blocked.

[0051] By adopting the above technical solution, the radio frequency conduction status and power supply monitoring results are aggregated into a safety status and queried before each step of execution. If the status is not met, the process is blocked, thus centralizing the scattered safety checks into a unified execution front gate.

[0052] Secondly, the multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponder automated testing system provided in this application adopts the following technical solution:

[0053] An automated testing system for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders includes:

[0054] The instrument programmable adaptation module is configured to connect to multiple test instruments, send an instrument identifier query command to each of the test instruments to obtain the instrument model, and load the programmable instruction set determined by a preset matching strategy for the instrument model from the external instruction set configuration file.

[0055] The workflow engine module, connected to the instrument programmable adapter module, is configured to load the workflow configuration file, drive the instrument programmable adapter module to control the test instrument to execute the atomic test steps according to the sequence of atomic test steps arranged in the workflow configuration file, and collect test data from multiple products under test via multiple controller area network buses in parallel with the main execution process through multiple background execution threads.

[0056] The safety interlock module, connected to the workflow engine module, is configured to place the RF switch in the RF link in a total reflection state and read back to confirm that the RF link is not conducting before allowing power to be supplied to the product under test.

[0057] The data attribution module, connected to the workflow engine module, is configured to perform multi-level attribution determination on the test data collected by the workflow engine module when the frame identifiers of the data frames of multiple products under test are the same, according to the attribution clues other than the frame identifiers to obtain the attribution determination results, and store the test data according to the attribution determination results respectively, wherein the test data of the determined attribution product is stored in isolation according to the determined attribution product.

[0058] The safety monitoring module, connected to the workflow engine module and the data attribution module, is configured to perform safety monitoring on the power supply of the product under test throughout the execution of the atomic test step sequence, and to perform power-off protection according to a preset shutdown sequence in response to the detection of power supply abnormality.

[0059] Thirdly, the computer device provided in this application adopts the following technical solution:

[0060] A computer device comprising:

[0061] One or more processors;

[0062] Memory;

[0063] One or more applications, wherein the one or more applications are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more applications being configured to:

[0064] The above-described automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders was implemented.

[0065] Fourthly, the computer-readable storage medium provided in this application adopts the following technical solution:

[0066] A computer-readable storage medium storing at least one instruction, at least one program, a code set, or an instruction set, wherein the at least one instruction, the at least one program, the code set, or the instruction set is loaded and executed by a processor to implement the following:

[0067] The above-described automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders was implemented.

[0068] In summary, this application includes at least one of the following beneficial technical effects:

[0069] 1. By externalizing the instrument driver commands as a configurable command set configuration file and loading it with a three-level matching strategy, the test process is abstracted into a sequence of atomic test steps that can be programmed, retried, and resumed from breakpoints. This allows the same test system to adapt to instruments from different manufacturers and models without modifying the program and to flexibly adjust the test process, thus balancing instrument versatility and execution efficiency.

[0070] 2. By using multiple attribution clues other than the frame identifier to find candidates and take the intersection to disambiguate under the condition that the data frame identifiers are the same and multiple products share the same bus in parallel, and by performing failure elimination and multi-cause re-judgment on conflicting and doubtful data, and by providing multi-level safety protection with radio frequency total reflection interlock and graded power outage for abnormal power supply, multiple products of the same model can be tested in parallel and the data attribution is accurate. The test process can run safely under long-term unattended operation.

[0071] 3. By performing probe compatibility verification on the instruction set loaded by fuzzy matching, clearing and resetting the time-sharing multiplexing switch, reconstructing and verifying the signature of the breakpoint resume, and converging the scattered security checks into a unified execution front gate, the reliability and security of the test system in scenarios such as model not pre-configured, resource time-sharing multiplexing, and abnormal recovery are further improved. Attached Figure Description

[0072] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of the overall process of an automated testing method for a multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponder in one embodiment of this application.

[0073] Figure 2 As shown in one embodiment of this application Figure 1 A detailed flowchart illustrating the steps for determining the attribution of a system at multiple levels.

[0074] Figure 3 As shown in one embodiment of this application Figure 1 A detailed flowchart illustrating the steps involved in power supply safety monitoring.

[0075] Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram of the composition of an automated test system for a multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponder in one embodiment of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0076] The present application will be further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings. It should be understood that the specific embodiments described herein are merely illustrative of the present application and are not intended to limit the scope of the application.

[0077] This application discloses an automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders. This method achieves automated testing of multiple products in parallel and unattended operation under multi-instrument collaboration by externalizing instrument driving commands as configurable instruction set configuration files and loading them according to a matching strategy; abstracting the test process into a programmable sequence of atomic test steps; determining the data ownership of multiple products of the same model based on ownership clues other than data frame identifiers; and providing full-process safety protection through RF interlocking and power supply anomaly monitoring. First, the test instrument model is identified and the corresponding programmable instruction set is loaded. Then, the atomic test steps are executed in parallel and test data is collected. Next, test data with the same frame identifier are assigned ownership based on off-frame ownership clues and stored in isolation by product. Finally, the power supply of the tested product is monitored throughout the test, and power is cut off in stages in case of anomalies. Therefore, it can balance instrument versatility, data reliability, parallel processing capability, and operational safety in situations such as changing instrument models, adjusting test processes, parallel operation of multiple products of the same model, and long-term unattended operation.

[0078] To facilitate understanding, let's first illustrate the core challenge addressed by this application with a specific scenario. For example, two identical telemetry and control transponders upload telemetry data via the same controller area network bus. Because their data frames use the same frame identifier, it's impossible to determine which product a particular frame of telemetry data originated from based solely on the frame content. If the data is archived directly according to the frame identifier, the data from the two products will be mixed up, thus existing methods require reverting to sequential testing of each device. This application determines the attribution of each test data frame through multiple attribution clues besides the frame identifier, enabling the two products to be tested in parallel while maintaining accurate data attribution.

[0079] The following provides a detailed explanation of the terminology, overall methodology, data attribution determination and specific implementation of power supply safety monitoring, as well as device mapping. First, the technical terms used in the embodiments of this application will be explained.

[0080] An external instruction set configuration file is a file that records the programmable instruction sets of various test instruments in a configurable format, independent of the test program. The external instruction set configuration file contains multiple programmable instruction sets organized by instrument model or model prefix. When connecting a new manufacturer or model of instrument, test personnel only need to add the corresponding programmable instruction set to the external instruction set configuration file, without needing to modify the test program itself.

[0081] A programmable instruction set (CIP) is a collection of instructions used to programmatically control a specific model or series of test instruments. It contains information such as the communication protocols, instruction syntax, and parameter ranges supported by that instrument model. CIPs include sets that precisely correspond to the instrument model, sets within the same series with the same prefix as the instrument model, and a default set used as a fallback when no matching model is available.

[0082] Workflow configuration files and atomic test steps are used to host test flows in a programmable manner. An atomic test step is the smallest indivisible execution unit in a test flow, such as issuing a setup command to a specified instrument, triggering a data acquisition, or performing an on / off operation on an RF switch. The workflow configuration file contains a sequence of atomic test steps arranged in the order of execution. Testers can construct or modify a complete test flow by adjusting the order of the atomic test steps without modifying the test program code.

[0083] Attribution clues, attribution determination results, and attribution products are used to determine the source of each frame of test data when multiple products of the same model are tested in parallel. Attribution clues are information other than the data frame identifier that can indicate the source of the test data, such as whether the currently executed atomic test step explicitly specifies the product under test, the controller area network bus from which the test data comes, and the power supply channel from which the test data comes. The attribution determination result is the conclusion obtained after performing multi-level attribution determination on the test data, and its value is either a definite attribution product or an attribution questionable. The attribution product is the product under test that is determined to be the source of the test data.

[0084] The verification buffer is a separate storage area used to temporarily store test data with questionable attribution. When multiple attribution clues point to different products under test and the conflict cannot be resolved, the corresponding test data is marked as having questionable attribution and stored in the verification buffer. The attribution is re-determined after the conditions causing the conflict are resolved, thus preventing data with uncertain attribution from being directly discarded or incorrectly archived.

[0085] Power supply channels and product groups describe the power supply and monitoring organization of the product under test (DUT). Each power supply channel supplies power to one DUT, thus there is a one-to-one connection between the power supply channel and the DUT; several DUTs can be grouped into a product group, and DUTs within the same product group share the total power monitoring scope.

[0086] The RF link and total reflection state are used to establish a switchable RF path between the test system and the product under test (DUT) and provide safe isolation before power-on. The RF link is the path connecting the RF port of the test instrument and the RF port of the DUT, and it contains an RF switch that can be switched on and off. The total reflection state is the state in which the RF switch disconnects the RF path, and the RF signal is completely reflected and not transmitted to the port of the DUT. It is used to isolate the RF path before the DUT is powered on to avoid power-on surges.

[0087] The overall flow of this method is described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings. (Refer to...) Figure 1 This method includes steps S1 to S6.

[0088] In S1, multiple test instruments are connected, and an instrument identification query command is sent to each test instrument to obtain the instrument model. The programmable instruction set determined by the preset matching strategy for the instrument model is loaded from the external instruction set configuration file.

[0089] In the specific implementation, the preset matching strategy determines the programmable instruction set according to the order of exact matching, same-series prefix matching, and default loading. That is, S1 includes sub-steps S11 to S13:

[0090] S11. Search for a programmable instruction set that precisely matches the instrument model in the external instruction set configuration file. In response to finding a precisely matching programmable instruction set, load the precisely matching programmable instruction set.

[0091] S12. In response to the failure to find an exact matching programmable instruction set, search for a programmable instruction set of the same series with the same model prefix as the instrument model in the external instruction set configuration file. In response to the finding of a programmable instruction set of the same series, load the programmable instruction set of the same series.

[0092] S13. In response to the absence of a programmable instruction set of the same series, load the preset default programmable instruction set.

[0093] In this way, instruments with pre-set models are precisely matched, instruments without pre-set models but belonging to known series are connected through the same series of programmable instruction sets, and other instruments without pre-set models are connected through the default programmable instruction set, thereby expanding the coverage of instrument compatibility without modifying the test program.

[0094] In some embodiments, considering that there may be differences in the range of individual instructions or parameters between the programmable instruction set loaded with prefix matching of the same series and the actual instrument, after loading the programmable instruction set of the same series in S12, a probe instruction is sent to the corresponding test instrument, and the return data format of the probe instruction is verified to see if it falls within the expected value range of the loaded programmable instruction set of the same series; in response to the return data format not falling within the expected value range, the preset default programmable instruction set is loaded instead. Thus, mismatches that may be introduced by prefix matching of the same series are intercepted and rolled back immediately after loading, avoiding the execution of the entire test with the wrong programmable instruction set.

[0095] The above describes one implementation of a matching strategy consisting of precise model matching, prefix matching within the same series, and default loading. In other embodiments, the preset matching strategy can also determine the programmable instruction set in other ways, such as matching the applicable capabilities declared in each programmable instruction set in the external instruction set configuration file with the capability declaration field returned by the instrument, or selecting a compatible programmable instruction set version based on the version number of the external instruction set configuration file. This alternative method also determines the corresponding programmable instruction set for the instrument from the external instruction set configuration file, thus achieving the goal of adapting to instruments from different manufacturers and models without modifying the test program.

[0096] In S2, the workflow configuration file is loaded. The workflow configuration file contains a sequence of atomic test steps arranged in the execution order.

[0097] In practice, testers construct a complete test flow by arranging the order of atomic test steps. For example, the sequence of atomic test steps can be recorded in a declarative configuration format. Testers can select and arrange atomic test steps by dragging and dropping cards through a graphical interface, thereby generating or modifying workflow configuration files, so that adjustments to the test flow do not depend on rewriting the test program code.

[0098] In S3, a pre-test is performed before executing the atomic test procedure sequence. The pre-test includes verifying the online status of each test instrument, and before powering on the product under test, the RF switch in the RF link is placed in the total reflection state, and the RF link is read back to confirm that it is not conducting before powering on the product under test.

[0099] In the specific implementation, the pre-test first sends a status query to each test instrument to confirm that all test instruments are online and responding normally. Then, before powering on the product under test (DUT), the RF switch in the RF link is switched to total reflection state, disconnecting the RF path between the DUT's RF port and the test instrument. The status of the RF switch is then read back to confirm that the RF link is indeed non-conductive. Powering on the DUT is only allowed after confirming non-conduction. The reason for implementing RF total reflection interlock before power-on is that if the DUT's RF port is directly connected to the test instrument at the moment of power-on, it may damage the DUT or the test instrument due to power surge. For example, when powering on the DUT, the sequence of first turning off the power output, then setting the current limit value, and finally turning on the power output is executed to further reduce power-on surge.

[0100] The above describes an implementation of RF interlocking that uses an RF switch to switch to a total reflection state and reads back for confirmation. In other embodiments, a directional coupler and a power detection unit can be set in the RF link to confirm that the RF link is not conducting by detecting whether the power on the RF path is lower than a preset isolation threshold. This alternative method also confirms that the RF path is disconnected or fully isolated before the product under test is powered on, thus achieving the same purpose of preventing damage to the product under test or test instruments from power-on surges.

[0101] In S4, the atomic test steps are executed sequentially according to the atomic test step sequence, and test data is collected from multiple products under test via multiple controller area network buses through multiple background execution threads in parallel with the main execution process.

[0102] In the implementation, the main execution flow is responsible for executing each atomic test step according to the atomic test sequence. Multiple background execution threads are each responsible for listening to and receiving data frames from various Controller Area Network (CAN) buses, thus collecting test data from multiple products under test in parallel while the main execution flow is advancing the test steps. Since multiple products of the same model can be connected to the same or different CAN buses, a single bus scan can simultaneously collect test data from multiple products under test connected to that bus, eliminating the need for polling each product individually.

[0103] Furthermore, to improve the fault tolerance and recoverability of test execution, a retry count and failure policy are configured for each atomic test step. The failure policy is to skip and continue execution or to immediately abort execution. After each atomic test step is completed, the execution progress is saved to disk. At the same time, a baseline task list signature is generated for the atomic test step sequence and saved to disk. When resuming execution from a breakpoint, a current task list signature is generated. If the current task list signature is inconsistent with the baseline task list signature already saved to disk, the execution is refused to continue.

[0104] The reason for verifying the task list signature before resuming is that if the test process is modified during the interruption, resuming directly will result in a result that does not match the original process. By verifying the consistency between the current task list signature and the baseline task list signature, we can avoid erroneous resuming when the process has been changed.

[0105] In some embodiments, before resuming from a breakpoint, a pre-start check is re-executed and each test instrument is restored to the configuration state corresponding to the breakpoint according to the execution progress already saved on disk. The run is resumed only after confirming that the configuration state of each test instrument is consistent with the breakpoint, so as to avoid the field state drift during the interruption causing the resumed data to be invalid.

[0106] In other embodiments, before retrying an atomic test step according to the number of retries, a corresponding recovery sub-sequence is executed based on the failure type of the atomic test step: in response to a failure type of instrument communication interruption, the corresponding test instrument is reconnected; in response to a failure type of instrument status abnormality, the corresponding test instrument is reset to the baseline state. Thus, the recovery sub-sequence ensures that test instruments experiencing communication interruption or status abnormality return to a baseline state of normal connection and confirmed status before retrying, avoiding retrying while the instrument is still in an unrecovered state and causing the retry to fail again due to the same unresolved fault.

[0107] For remote control commands sent simultaneously in a dual-channel redundant manner, the system receives execution receipts from both channels and selects one of them as the confirmation receipt according to a preset selection rule. For example, this rule might be to select the execution receipt returned first from both channels, or, if the two channel receipts match, select one, and if they don't match, select the execution receipt indicating successful execution. This prevents the same remote control command from being executed repeatedly and causing side effects. Furthermore, during the acquisition of test data via each controller area network (CLAN) bus, if a data frame is missing on one CLAN bus, the test data for the corresponding product under test is marked as incomplete. During isolated storage, the incomplete test data is distinguished from the complete test data to prevent missing frame data from being archived as complete results.

[0108] In some embodiments, the termination of the atomic test step sequence adopts a cooperative cancellation method, that is, by setting a cancellation flag, the main execution flow and each background execution thread query the cancellation flag at their respective safety checkpoints and stop execution at the checkpoints, so as to avoid the product under test or test instrument being in an uncertain state due to forced interruption in the middle of instruction issuance or data acquisition.

[0109] In S5, when the frame identifiers of the data frames transmitted by multiple products under test via the controller area network bus are the same, multi-level attribution determination is performed according to the attribution clues other than the frame identifier to obtain the attribution determination result, and the test data is stored separately according to the attribution determination result. Among them, the test data of the determined product is stored in isolation according to the determined product.

[0110] Because multiple devices of the same model use the same frame identifier for their data frames, the test data collected by S4 cannot be distinguished from its source solely based on the frame identifier. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the attribution of each frame of test data based on attribution clues other than the frame identifier. Specifically, refer to... Figure 2 The multi-level attribution determination includes sub-steps S51 to S52:

[0111] S51. Determine the first, second, and third attribution candidates respectively. When the product under test (DUT) is explicitly specified in the currently executed atomic test step, the explicitly specified DUT is designated as the first attribution candidate. When the DUT is not explicitly specified in the currently executed atomic test step, the first attribution candidate is empty. One or more DUTs connected to the Controller Area Network (CLAN) bus from which the data frame originates are designated as the second attribution candidates. The DUTs connected to the power supply channel from which the test data originates are designated as the third attribution candidate. The three attribution candidates provide possible attributions for the test data from three dimensions: explicit specification in the workflow step, bus source of the data frame, and power supply channel source of the test data, providing a basis for subsequent intersection determination. When multiple DUTs are connected to the same CLAN bus, the second attribution candidate obtained by reverse lookup along that bus is the set of multiple DUTs connected to that bus.

[0112] In the specific implementation, each product under test (DUT) is powered by an independent power supply channel, and there is a static one-to-one correspondence between the power supply channel and the DUT. The power supply channel from which the test data comes is determined as follows: while collecting test data, the power supply current of each power supply channel is monitored synchronously. When a DUT generates a identifiable current transient on its connected power supply channel during the data frame transmission period, the occurrence time of the current transient is correlated with the arrival time of the test data. The DUT connected to the power supply channel with consistent timing correlation is determined as the third home candidate. Since the power supply channel and the DUT are statically one-to-one, the third home candidate obtained is a single DUT. Therefore, even if multiple DUTs share the same Controller Area Network (CLAN) bus, making the second home candidate a set, the third home candidate can still be used to converge the home to a single DUT.

[0113] S52. In response to the fact that the intersection of the tested products pointed to by each of the non-empty attribution candidates is a single tested product, this single tested product is taken as the attribution product determined in the attribution determination result. Under normal circumstances where all attribution candidates are consistent, for example, if the first attribution candidate is a single tested product, or if the second attribution candidate is a set but the single tested product pointed to by the third attribution candidate falls within that set, their intersection is the single tested product, and the attribution product can be directly determined accordingly.

[0114] Based on the above normal judgment, for situations where conflicting attribution candidates occur, further conflict resolution is performed. In response to an empty intersection of the tested products pointed to by all non-empty attribution candidates, attribution candidates corresponding to attribution clues in a failed state are excluded. Failure states include the Controller Area Network (CLAN) bus being in a time-division multiplexing state. Whether the CLAN bus is in a time-division multiplexing state is determined by the test system based on whether multiple tested products are currently scheduled to share the same CLAN bus. In response to a single tested product being pointed to by the remaining non-empty attribution candidates after exclusion, this single tested product is taken as the attribution product determined in the attribution judgment result. In response to an empty intersection of the tested products pointed to by the remaining non-empty attribution candidates after exclusion, the test data is marked as attribution questionable and stored in the review buffer.

[0115] The reason for excluding the attribution clues in time-division multiplexing state when there is a conflict is that when the controller area network bus is time-division multiplexed by multiple products under test, the attribution candidate obtained by reverse lookup based on the bus may not be the real source in the current time period and is a failed clue. Excluding failed clues and then taking the intersection decision can avoid systemic misjudgment caused by the failure of a single clue in time-division multiplexing conditions.

[0116] For example, two identical products under test (DUTs) are connected to the same Controller Area Network (CLAN) bus and upload telemetry data in parallel, using the same frame identifier for their data frames. For one frame of test data, the currently executed atomic test step does not explicitly specify the DUT, so the first candidate is empty. By reverse-checking the CLAN bus from which the data frame originated, the second candidate is the set of the first and second DUTs connected to that bus. Based on the timing correlation between the arrival time of the test data and the transient current of each power supply channel, the third candidate is the first DUT. The intersection of the non-empty second and third candidates points to the first DUT; therefore, the product to which this frame of test data belongs is determined to be the first DUT, thus accurately distinguishing the data from two products with the same frame identifier operating parallel on the same bus. For example, when the first home candidate is the first tested product explicitly designated, and the third home candidate is the second tested product obtained through timing correlation, the intersection of the two is empty, thus constituting a conflict; if the controller LAN bus is not in time-division multiplexing state at this time and there are no failure clues to rule out, then the test data is marked as home questionable and stored in the review buffer for subsequent review.

[0117] Furthermore, for test data whose attribution determination result is a definite product, when the Controller Area Network (CLAN) bus from which the data frame originates is connected to only a single product under test (DUT), the attribution determination result of the test data is injected back into the execution context of the workflow configuration file. This allows subsequent atomic test steps to directly determine the product attribution for the test data from the CLAN bus based on the execution context, without having to repeatedly perform a complete multi-level attribution determination for each frame of data. When the CLAN bus is connected to multiple DUTs, the above method is not used. Instead, multi-level attribution determination is performed for each frame of test data, and disambiguation is performed frame by frame using a third attribution candidate to avoid misusing a single determination result for other DUTs on the same bus. For test data stored in the review buffer, the values ​​of each attribution clue corresponding to the test data are retained. Multi-level attribution determination is re-executed for the test data in the review buffer under any of the following circumstances: the time-division multiplexing state of the Controller Area Network (CAN) bus is released; or subsequent atomic test steps explicitly specify the same test product as the second or third attribution candidate of the test data. For test data whose attribution is still questionable at the end of the test round, a manual review list is output for manual determination. In this way, as testing progresses, confirmed attributions are used safely while attribution uncertainty gradually decreases. Test data with attribution doubts due to various causes receive a chance for review or manual intervention instead of being directly discarded.

[0118] In some embodiments, in response to a time-division multiplexing of the product under test (DUT) switching, before handing over the shared test instrument and RF link to the DUT for the next time period, the data buffer is cleared, the shared test instrument and RF link are reset to the baseline state, and it is confirmed that there is no residual data, so as to avoid residual data from the previous time period contaminating the test of the next time period.

[0119] The above describes one attribution determination implementation using the explicit specification of atomic test steps, the Controller Area Network (CLAN) bus from which the data frame originates, and the power supply channel from which the test data originates as three attribution clues. In other embodiments, the attribution clues may also use information other than the frame identifier, such as assigning different test time slices to each product under test and using the time slice to which the acquisition time belongs as the attribution clue, or using the response sequence of each product under test in a single bus scan as the attribution clue. This alternative approach also determines the source of test data from dimensions other than the data frame identifier, and also achieves the goal of accurately attributing parallel test data of multiple products under the condition that the frame identifiers are the same.

[0120] In S6, the power supply of the product under test is monitored throughout the entire process from powering on the product under test to the end of the test. In response to the detection of power supply abnormality, power-off protection is performed according to the preset shutdown sequence.

[0121] Specifically, refer to Figure 3The security monitoring in S6 includes sub-steps S61 to S64:

[0122] S61. Collect the supply voltage of each product under test and the total power of each product group in turn, where each power supply channel supplies power to one product under test. Round-by-round data collection allows the power supply status to be continuously observed as the test progresses, and the total power of the product group is used to reflect the overall power supply load of a group of products.

[0123] S62. In response to the voltage deviation of the supply voltage relative to the preset voltage setting value exceeding a preset voltage deviation threshold, or the total power exceeding a preset power threshold, and the exceeding of the voltage deviation or total power still holds after a preset stabilization period, a power supply abnormality is determined to have occurred. The preset stabilization period is used to distinguish between transient fluctuations at the moment of power-on and continuous power supply abnormalities. The introduction of a preset stabilization period as a condition ensures that instantaneous voltage or power fluctuations do not trigger erroneous power outages.

[0124] S63. In response to determining that a power supply abnormality has occurred, for power supply abnormalities caused by a voltage deviation exceeding a preset voltage deviation threshold, the abnormality is located to the corresponding single product under test according to the one-to-one correspondence between each power supply channel and the product under test. For power supply abnormalities caused by total power exceeding a preset power threshold, since total power is the overall power supply load of multiple products under test within a product group and may not correspond to a single power supply channel, if a single product under test cannot be located according to the one-to-one correspondence, the abnormality is attributed to the product group whose total power exceeds the preset power threshold. Since each power supply channel supplies power to one product under test, the voltage-type power supply abnormality can be located to a specific single product based on the one-to-one correspondence between the power supply channel and the product under test.

[0125] S64. In response to locating a single product under test and the other products under test in the product group to which the single product under test belongs not experiencing power supply abnormalities, only the power supply channel connected to the located single product under test is disconnected; in response to not locating a single product under test, or multiple products under test in the same product group experiencing power supply abnormalities one after another, the product group whose total power exceeds the preset power threshold is identified as the product group to be powered off, and all products under test in the product group to be powered off are powered off according to the preset shutdown sequence.

[0126] For example, when a product under test is powered on, its supply voltage may deviate from the preset voltage setting value briefly due to a current surge, causing the voltage deviation to exceed the preset voltage deviation threshold for a short period. Since this deviation returns to within the preset voltage deviation threshold after a preset stabilization period, it is not considered a power supply abnormality but merely a power-on transient fluctuation. Conversely, if a product under test experiences an internal short circuit, causing its supply voltage to continuously deviate from the preset voltage setting value, and the voltage deviation remains above the preset voltage deviation threshold even after exceeding the preset stabilization period, then the product under test is determined to have a power supply abnormality.

[0127] The reason for only disconnecting the power supply channel of a single product under test when the other products in the same group are normal is that when multiple products are tested in parallel, if one product malfunctions and the entire group is powered off, the testing of the other normal products in the same group will be interrupted. By only disconnecting the power supply channel connected to the malfunctioning product, the testing continuity of the other products in the same group can be maintained while protecting the malfunctioning product. The corresponding products are only powered off as a whole when a single malfunctioning product cannot be located.

[0128] In some embodiments, the preset shutdown sequence includes multiple shutdown steps executed sequentially, such as sequentially turning off the RF output, disconnecting the power supply to the product under test, and placing the RF switch in a total reflection state; in response to the failure of any of the shutdown steps, a manual handling prompt for the failed shutdown step is output, and the remaining shutdown steps are executed to complete the power-off protection, so as to avoid the dangerous state of shutdown failure being silently ignored.

[0129] As an optional implementation, the on / off state of the RF link and the safety monitoring results of the power supply are aggregated into a safety state. This safety state is queried before each atomic test step is executed. If the safety state does not meet the preset release conditions, the execution of the atomic test step is blocked, thereby centralizing the safety checks scattered in various places into a unified execution pre-gate. As an example, the release conditions are that the on / off state of the RF link is consistent with the state required by the current atomic test step, and the safety monitoring results of the power supply do not indicate the existence of any unhandled power supply anomalies.

[0130] In some embodiments, an abnormal exit hook is registered for the test program. In response to the test program exiting due to an abnormality, the abnormal exit hook executes a preset shutdown sequence to power off the product under test, so as to avoid the product under test remaining in a powered state after the test program exits abnormally.

[0131] The above describes a safety monitoring implementation method that uses voltage deviation and total power as criteria for power supply anomalies. In other embodiments, other electrical quantities can be used as criteria for power supply anomalies, such as monitoring whether the power supply current of each power supply channel exceeds a preset current threshold, or combining power supply voltage, power supply current, and temperature as criteria. This alternative method also monitors the power supply status of the product under test and provides power-off protection in case of anomalies, thus achieving the goal of safe operation under long-term unattended conditions.

[0132] The following describes the automated testing system for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders corresponding to this method. (Refer to...) Figure 4 The system includes an instrument programming adaptation module, a workflow engine module, a safety interlock module, a data ownership module, and a safety monitoring module.

[0133] The instrument programmable adaptation module is configured to connect to multiple test instruments, send an instrument identifier query command to each test instrument to obtain the instrument model, and load the programmable instruction set determined by a preset matching strategy for the instrument model from an external instruction set configuration file. In specific implementation, the instrument programmable adaptation module determines the programmable instruction set in the order of exact matching, same-series prefix matching, and default loading. After loading the same-series programmable instruction set, it verifies compatibility with probe commands and reverts to the default programmable instruction set if incompatible.

[0134] The workflow engine module connects to the instrument programmable adaptation module and is configured to load workflow configuration files. It drives the instrument programmable adaptation module to control the test instruments to execute the atomic test steps according to the sequence of atomic test steps arranged in the workflow configuration file. Test data is collected from multiple products under test via multiple controller area network buses through multiple background execution threads in parallel with the main execution flow. In its implementation, the workflow engine module also configures the number of retry attempts and failure strategies for each atomic test step, saves the execution progress to disk, and generates a baseline task list signature for the atomic test step sequence to support retries and breakpoint resumption of atomic test steps.

[0135] The safety interlock module is connected to the workflow engine module and is configured to place the RF switch in the RF link into a total reflection state and read back to confirm that the RF link is not conducting before allowing power to be supplied to the product under test, thereby isolating the RF path before power-on to avoid power-on shock.

[0136] The data attribution module is connected to the workflow engine module and is configured to perform multi-level attribution determination on test data collected by the workflow engine module when the frame identifiers of data frames from multiple products under test are the same. This determination is based on attribution clues other than the frame identifier, and the test data is stored separately according to the attribution determination results. Specifically, test data for products with a determined attribution result are stored isolated according to that determined product. In the implementation, the data attribution module determines three attribution candidates based on the explicit specification of the atomic test steps, the controller area network bus from which the data frame originates, and the power supply channel from which the test data originates. When attribution candidate conflicts occur, attribution clues in a failed state such as time-division multiplexing are excluded before a decision is made. Test data whose conflicts cannot be resolved are marked as having questionable attribution and stored in a verification buffer. Confirmed attributions are then injected back into the execution context of the workflow engine module.

[0137] The safety monitoring module is connected to the workflow engine module and the data attribution module. It is configured to monitor the power supply of the product under test throughout the entire sequence of atomic test steps and, in response to detected power supply anomalies, execute power-off protection according to a preset shutdown sequence. In specific implementation, the safety monitoring module collects the power supply voltage of each product under test and the total power of each product group in turn. It distinguishes between power-on transients and power supply anomalies by continuously exceeding the threshold, and locates the anomaly to the specific product according to the connection relationship between the power supply channel and the product under test, and then cuts off power in stages.

[0138] Specific limitations regarding the automated testing system for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders can be found in the limitations of the automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders described above, and will not be repeated here. Each module in the aforementioned automated testing system for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders can be implemented entirely or partially through software, hardware, or a combination thereof. These modules can be embedded in or independent of the processor in a computer device, or stored in the memory of a computer device as software, so that the processor can call and execute the corresponding operations of each module.

[0139] In one embodiment, a computer device is provided, which may be a server. The computer device includes a processor, memory, a network interface, and a database connected via a system bus. The processor provides computing and control capabilities. The memory includes a non-volatile storage medium and internal memory. The non-volatile storage medium stores an operating system, computer programs, and a database. The internal memory provides an environment for the operation of the operating system and computer programs in the non-volatile storage medium. The database stores data related to an automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders. The network interface communicates with external terminals via a network connection. When the computer program is executed by the processor, it implements an automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders.

[0140] In one embodiment, a computer device is provided, including a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders described in the above embodiments, for example... Figure 1 Steps S1 to S6 are shown.

[0141] In one embodiment, a computer-readable storage medium is provided, on which a computer program is stored. When executed by a processor, the computer program implements the automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders described in the above embodiments, for example... Figure 1 Steps S1 to S6 are shown.

[0142] Those skilled in the art will understand that all or part of the processes in the methods of the above embodiments can be implemented by a computer program instructing related hardware. This computer program can be stored in a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium. When executed, the computer program can include the processes of the embodiments of the above methods. Any references to memory, storage, databases, or other media used in the embodiments of this application can include non-volatile and / or volatile memory. Non-volatile memory may include read-only memory (ROM), programmable ROM (PROM), electrically programmable ROM (EPROM), electrically erasable programmable ROM (EEPROM), or flash memory. Volatile memory may include random access memory (RAM) or external cache memory. By way of illustration and not limitation, RAM is available in various forms, such as static RAM (SRAM), dynamic RAM (DRAM), synchronous DRAM (SDRAM), dual data rate SDRAM (DDRSDRAM), enhanced SDRAM (ESDRAM), synchronous link DRAM (SLDRAM), direct memory bus dynamic RAM (DRDRAM), and memory bus dynamic RAM (RDRAM), etc.

[0143] The same or similar parts in the various embodiments of this application can be referenced to each other, and the technical features in the various embodiments can be combined to form new embodiments without conflict.

[0144] Those skilled in the art will clearly understand that, for the sake of convenience and brevity, the above-described division of functional units and modules is used as an example. In practical applications, the above functions can be assigned to different functional units and modules as needed, that is, the internal structure of the device / system can be divided into different functional units or modules to complete all or part of the functions described above.

[0145] The above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of this application, and are not intended to limit them. Although this application has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications can still be made to the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments, or equivalent substitutions can be made to some of the technical features. Such modifications or substitutions do not cause the essence of the corresponding technical solutions to deviate from the spirit and scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of this application, and should all be included within the protection scope of this application.

Claims

1. An automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders, characterized in that, include: S1. Connect multiple test instruments, send an instrument identification query command to each of the test instruments to obtain the instrument model, and load the programmable instruction set determined by the preset matching strategy for the instrument model from the external instruction set configuration file; S2. Load the workflow configuration file, which contains a sequence of atomic test steps arranged in the execution order of multiple atomic test steps; S3. Before executing the atomic test step sequence, a startup pre-check is performed. The startup pre-check includes verifying the online status of each test instrument, and before powering on the product under test, the RF switch in the RF link is placed in the total reflection state, and the RF link is read back to confirm that it is not conducting before powering on the product under test. S4. The atomic test steps are executed in sequence according to the atomic test steps, and test data is collected from multiple products under test via multiple controller area network buses in parallel with the main execution process through multiple background execution threads. S5. For the collected test data, if the frame identifiers of the data frames transmitted by multiple products under test via the controller local area network bus are the same, perform multi-level attribution determination according to the attribution clue other than the frame identifier to obtain the attribution determination result, and store the test data according to the attribution determination result respectively, wherein the test data of the determined attribution product is stored in isolation according to the determined attribution product. S6. The power supply of the product under test is monitored throughout the entire process of executing the atomic test sequence. In response to the detection of a power supply abnormality, power-off protection is performed according to a preset shutdown sequence.

2. The automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders according to claim 1, characterized in that, The step S1, loading the set of programmable instructions determined by the preset matching strategy for the instrument model, includes the following sub-steps: S11. Search for a programmable instruction set that precisely matches the instrument model in the external instruction set configuration file; in response to finding the precisely matching programmable instruction set, load the precisely matching programmable instruction set. S12. In response to the failure to find the exact matching programmable instruction set, search for a programmable instruction set of the same series with the same model prefix as the instrument model in the external instruction set configuration file; in response to the finding of the programmable instruction set of the same series, load the programmable instruction set of the same series. S13. In response to the absence of the same series of programmable instruction sets, load the preset default programmable instruction set.

3. The automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders according to claim 1, characterized in that, In step S4, a retry count and a failure strategy are configured for each atomic test step, wherein the failure strategy is to skip and continue execution or to immediately terminate execution; and after each atomic test step is completed, the execution progress is saved to disk, and a baseline task list signature is generated for the atomic test step sequence and saved to disk; when resuming execution from a breakpoint, a current task list signature is generated, and if the current task list signature is inconsistent with the baseline task list signature already saved to disk, resuming execution is refused.

4. The automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders according to claim 1, characterized in that, The multi-level attribution determination performed in step S5 includes the following sub-steps: S51. Determine the first home candidate, the second home candidate, and the third home candidate respectively, wherein when the product under test is explicitly specified in the currently executed atomic test step, the explicitly specified product under test is used as the first home candidate; when the product under test is not explicitly specified in the currently executed atomic test step, the first home candidate is empty; one or more products under test connected to the controller area network bus from which the data frame comes are used as the second home candidate; and the product under test connected to the power supply channel from which the test data comes is used as the third home candidate. S52. In response to the intersection of the tested products pointed to by each of the non-empty attribution candidates being a single tested product, the single tested product is taken as the attribution product determined in the attribution determination result.

5. The automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders according to claim 4, characterized in that, In step S5, in response to the intersection of the tested products pointed to by each of the non-empty attribution candidates being empty, the attribution candidates corresponding to the attribution clues in a failed state are excluded. The failed state includes the controller local area network bus being in a time-division multiplexing state. In response to the intersection of the tested products pointed to by the remaining non-empty attribution candidates after exclusion being a single tested product, the single tested product is taken as the attribution product determined in the attribution determination result. In response to the intersection of the tested products pointed to by the remaining non-empty attribution candidates after exclusion still being empty, the attribution determination result is determined to be attribution doubtful, and the test data with the attribution determination result of attribution doubtful is stored in the review buffer.

6. The automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders according to claim 5, characterized in that, In step S5, for test data whose attribution determination result is a confirmed product, when the Controller Area Network (CLAN) bus from which the data frame originates is connected to only a single product under test, the attribution determination result of the test data is injected back into the execution context of the workflow configuration file, so that subsequent atomic test steps can directly determine the product to which the test data originates from the CLAN bus based on the execution context. For test data stored in the verification buffer, the values ​​of each attribution clue corresponding to the test data are retained, and in response to the release of the time-division multiplexing state of the CLAN bus, or the subsequent atomic test steps explicitly specifying the same product under test as the second or third attribution candidate of the test data, the multi-level attribution determination is re-executed on the test data in the verification buffer. For test data whose attribution is still questionable at the end of the test round, a manual verification list is output.

7. The automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders according to claim 1, characterized in that, The security monitoring in S6 includes the following sub-steps: S61. Collect the power supply voltage of each product under test and the total power of each product group in turn, wherein each power supply channel supplies power to one product under test; S62. In response to the voltage deviation of the power supply voltage relative to the preset voltage setting value exceeding a preset voltage deviation threshold, or the total power exceeding a preset power threshold, and the voltage deviation or the total power exceeding the limit still being established after a preset stabilization period, it is determined that the power supply abnormality has occurred, wherein the preset stabilization period is used to distinguish between transient fluctuations at the moment of power-on and continuous power supply abnormalities. S63. In response to determining that the power supply abnormality has occurred, for power supply abnormalities caused by the voltage deviation exceeding the preset voltage deviation threshold, the power supply abnormality is located to the corresponding single product under test according to the one-to-one correspondence between each power supply channel and the product under test; for power supply abnormalities caused by the total power exceeding the preset power threshold, if a single product under test cannot be located, the power supply abnormality is classified into the product group whose total power exceeds the preset power threshold. S64. In response to locating a single product under test and the other products under test in the product group to which the single product under test belongs not experiencing the power supply abnormality, power is cut off only to the power supply channel connected to the single product under test located. In response to the failure to locate a single product under test, or the successive occurrence of the power supply abnormality in multiple products under test within the same product group, the product group whose total power exceeds the preset power threshold is identified as a product group to be powered off, and all products under test within the product group to be powered off are powered off according to the preset shutdown sequence.

8. An automated testing system for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders, characterized in that, include: The instrument programmable adaptation module is configured to connect to multiple test instruments, send an instrument identifier query command to each of the test instruments to obtain the instrument model, and load the programmable instruction set determined by a preset matching strategy for the instrument model from the external instruction set configuration file. The workflow engine module, connected to the instrument programmable adapter module, is configured to load the workflow configuration file, drive the instrument programmable adapter module to control the test instrument to execute the atomic test steps according to the sequence of atomic test steps arranged in the workflow configuration file, and collect test data from multiple products under test via multiple controller area network buses in parallel with the main execution process through multiple background execution threads. The safety interlock module, connected to the workflow engine module, is configured to place the RF switch in the RF link in a total reflection state and read back to confirm that the RF link is not conducting before powering on the product under test; The data attribution module, connected to the workflow engine module, is configured to perform multi-level attribution determination on the test data collected by the workflow engine module when the frame identifiers of the data frames of multiple products under test are the same, according to the attribution clues other than the frame identifiers to obtain the attribution determination results, and store the test data according to the attribution determination results respectively, wherein the test data of the determined attribution product is stored in isolation according to the determined attribution product. The safety monitoring module, connected to the workflow engine module and the data attribution module, is configured to perform safety monitoring on the power supply of the product under test throughout the execution of the atomic test step sequence, and to perform power-off protection according to a preset shutdown sequence in response to the detection of power supply abnormality.

9. A computer device, characterized in that, It includes: One or more processors; Memory; One or more applications, wherein the one or more applications are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more applications being configured to: execute the automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders according to any one of claims 1 to 7.

10. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, The storage medium stores at least one instruction, at least one program, code set, or instruction set, wherein the at least one instruction, the at least one program, the code set, or instruction set is loaded and executed by a processor to implement: the automated testing method for multi-instrument collaborative measurement and control transponders according to any one of claims 1 to 7.

Images