Multiple PROFIsafe submodules and ART-Tester

[SamS]

Hello,

we created a device that implements several PROFIsafe submodules. These submodules are combined in one PROFIsafe module using the attributes "PhysicalSubslots" and "FixedInSubslots"
Example:

Code: Select all

<ModuleList>
  <ModuleItem ID="IDM_1" ModuleIdentNumber="0x00000001" PhysicalSubslots="1..2">
    <UseableSubmodules>
      <SubmoduleItemRef SubmoduleItemTarget="IDS_Safe1" FixedInSubslots="1"/>
      <SubmoduleItemRef SubmoduleItemTarget="IDS_Safe1" FixedInSubslots="2"/>
    </UseableSubmodules>
  </ModuleItem>
</ModuleList>
<SubmoduleList>
  <SubmoduleItem ID="IDS_Safe1" SubmoduleIdentNumber="0x00000011" PROFIsafeSupported="true">
        IOData, RecordDataList, ...
  </SubmoduleItem>
  <SubmoduleItem ID="IDS_Safe2" SubmoduleIdentNumber="0x00000012" PROFIsafeSupported="true">
        IOData, RecordDataList, ...
  </SubmoduleItem>
</SubmoduleList>

Unfortunately, the first PROFIsafe testcase (startup) fails with the ART-Tester.
We can see that it succeeds for the first subslot but not for the second. In the pcap, the IOData for the first subslot changes as expected but with test step 2 for the second subslot, only the IOData for the first subslot changes. The IOData for the second subslot remains unchanged throughout the test step. We would assume that for the second test step, the IOData for the second subslot should change but the IOData for the first subslot remains unchanged. Is this assumption correct?

Best regards,
Sam

[DanielS]

Hello,

we created a device that implements several PROFIsafe submodules. These submodules are combined in one PROFIsafe module using the attributes "PhysicalSubslots" and "FixedInSubslots"
Example:

Code: Select all

<ModuleList>
  <ModuleItem ID="IDM_1" ModuleIdentNumber="0x00000001" PhysicalSubslots="1..2">
    <UseableSubmodules>
      <SubmoduleItemRef SubmoduleItemTarget="IDS_Safe1" FixedInSubslots="1"/>
      <SubmoduleItemRef SubmoduleItemTarget="IDS_Safe1" FixedInSubslots="2"/>
    </UseableSubmodules>
  </ModuleItem>
</ModuleList>
<SubmoduleList>
  <SubmoduleItem ID="IDS_Safe1" SubmoduleIdentNumber="0x00000011" PROFIsafeSupported="true">
        IOData, RecordDataList, ...
  </SubmoduleItem>
  <SubmoduleItem ID="IDS_Safe2" SubmoduleIdentNumber="0x00000012" PROFIsafeSupported="true">
        IOData, RecordDataList, ...
  </SubmoduleItem>
</SubmoduleList>

Unfortunately, the first PROFIsafe testcase (startup) fails with the ART-Tester.
We can see that it succeeds for the first subslot but not for the second. In the pcap, the IOData for the first subslot changes as expected but with test step 2 for the second subslot, only the IOData for the first subslot changes. The IOData for the second subslot remains unchanged throughout the test step. We would assume that for the second test step, the IOData for the second subslot should change but the IOData for the first subslot remains unchanged. Is this assumption correct?

Best regards,
Sam

Dear Sam,

yes your assumption is correct. Normally the second subslot should also change the IOData from the testside. At the moment it is not implemented so far and you cannot test more than one PROFIsafe Subslot in parallel. You need to change your GSD file that the subslot 1 and 2 are not fixed in the subslot so they can be removed. Then you should test each module separately.
I hope a configuration with only one subslot is possible in your implementation. Otherwise you are not able to test your device at the moment.

Best regards,
Daniel

[SamS]

Hello,

we created a device that implements several PROFIsafe submodules. These submodules are combined in one PROFIsafe module using the attributes "PhysicalSubslots" and "FixedInSubslots"
Example:

Code: Select all

<ModuleList>
  <ModuleItem ID="IDM_1" ModuleIdentNumber="0x00000001" PhysicalSubslots="1..2">
    <UseableSubmodules>
      <SubmoduleItemRef SubmoduleItemTarget="IDS_Safe1" FixedInSubslots="1"/>
      <SubmoduleItemRef SubmoduleItemTarget="IDS_Safe1" FixedInSubslots="2"/>
    </UseableSubmodules>
  </ModuleItem>
</ModuleList>
<SubmoduleList>
  <SubmoduleItem ID="IDS_Safe1" SubmoduleIdentNumber="0x00000011" PROFIsafeSupported="true">
        IOData, RecordDataList, ...
  </SubmoduleItem>
  <SubmoduleItem ID="IDS_Safe2" SubmoduleIdentNumber="0x00000012" PROFIsafeSupported="true">
        IOData, RecordDataList, ...
  </SubmoduleItem>
</SubmoduleList>

Unfortunately, the first PROFIsafe testcase (startup) fails with the ART-Tester.
We can see that it succeeds for the first subslot but not for the second. In the pcap, the IOData for the first subslot changes as expected but with test step 2 for the second subslot, only the IOData for the first subslot changes. The IOData for the second subslot remains unchanged throughout the test step. We would assume that for the second test step, the IOData for the second subslot should change but the IOData for the first subslot remains unchanged. Is this assumption correct?

Best regards,
Sam

Dear Sam,

yes your assumption is correct. Normally the second subslot should also change the IOData from the testside. At the moment it is not implemented so far and you cannot test more than one PROFIsafe Subslot in parallel. You need to change your GSD file that the subslot 1 and 2 are not fixed in the subslot so they can be removed. Then you should test each module separately.
I hope a configuration with only one subslot is possible in your implementation. Otherwise you are not able to test your device at the moment.

Best regards,
Daniel

Dear Daniel,

thank you very much for your quick response. That is a bit unfortunate. Fortunately, it is possible to test these subslots separately with our implementation.
It doesn't make much sense to use only one subslot with our application. I'm not sure what will be tested in detail in the interoperability test. Do you know if this test is done for each subslot separately as well? I assume there will be a test where the input/output data will be tested. This test should be done with both subslots inserted for our application. Otherwise, we need to check how to make that test possible.

Best regards,
Sam