Talk:Automatic test pattern generation

EDASeeAlso

To the EDASeeAlso template editor:

Community member - I am attaching the following SPAM template. There are three key issues with your template:
1) It refers readers to external links where a fee is required.
2) It is not consistent with the "See Also" sections of the articles.
3) The wording of the template does not fit all articles.

Please discontinue use of this template and instead consider putting specific links to specific, relevant articles. Thank you. TeamX 00:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

To TeamX:
I reverted your last edit again, as I don't consider the template SPAM as well. In my opinion the information certainly does contribute to the subject. The fact in itself that payment is required doesn't necessarily imply that it is just of simple commercial interest. The books, mentioned in the reference lists, have to be payed for too. Further, both books and conference proceedings can be consulted in academic libraries. If you have valuable suggestions for the content of the template you might start a specific discussion on its talk page.
I suggest you to follow the wp:bb guidelines in case of lacking consensus on a certain issue and use the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. So if your edit is undone by someone disagreeing on it, please leave it at that for the main page and just start a discussion on the talk page to try and find new consensus, rather than recklessly redo your edit. WimdeValk 13:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

TO WimdeValk The community is better served by text, and not a template. This template is not applicable.... and cannot be edited for this article only as it is template. I have already suggested putting specific links and specific appropriate conference rather than using a template.

TeamX 23:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you talk to any expert on ATPG, and ask a specific question, they will probably (almost certainly) direct you to the IEEE or ACM journals. They are the primary references in the field. Unfortunately these are not free sites, but the ARE the primary references, and an encylopedia should direct the readers to where the most authoritative information is. Now IEEE has at least 1200 articles on ATPG, and 800 for the ACM, so you can't possibly list them all. If you pick a really good subset (which is a great idea), then they will still most likely point to the IEEE/ACM library as source, and so will still be fee based. So for anyone seeking further information, you end up putting pointers to IEEExplore and ACM digital library, and pointers to the common conferences. But doing this to 20 EDA articles is exactly what templates are for, hence the template.

So if you want to replace the generic template with more specific info, that would be great. But it should at least have links to the IEEExplore, and the ACM digital library, and the common conferences (not all ATPG is presented at ITC). Otherwise the reader is less likely, not more, to be able to find the information they seek. LouScheffer 00:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The correct thing to do is put in the links. Not this generic template. The conferences listed are incorrect. Ask ATPG experts - good point - they will tell you that ITC is much more important than DAC. Please keep the template off and write the text so it can modified for correctness.

I strongly suggest that the EDA-See-Also template be abandoned on all articles in favor of specific text and links. Regards. TeamX 04:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Additionally, there is generic use of this template across several EDA articles. Generic wording to a paid site is very close, if not SPAM. I simply ask that the template not be used so the community can improve the corresponding text. I also believe that using this template, however sincere in purpose, is SPAM and against Wiki guidelines. Please remove. There are plenty of ATPG that are available w/o cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamX (talk • contribs) 04:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! A few points

An encyclopedia article should point to the primary references, though pointing to the best free ones as well is great. The primary references are in fact the IEEE and ACM. Note that the International Test Conference is published by the IEEE Proceedings of ITC, as is the VLSI test conference, and these are fee-based. It is not clear that substituting one fee-based reference for another helps your objection.

If you remove the template, and add conferences, please make them linkable. This will make it much easier for users to get the articles.

It's considered bad form to add your entry to the top of a list.

This is wikipedia, after all. You can SUBST the template text, (type {{subst:EDASeeAlso}} ). This substitutes the text, not macro's it, so then you can edit it to your heart's content. In fact, you can do this on every page where the template is used. Then everything will depend on whether users think you made it better or worse. LouScheffer 21:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

clarify

Can someone reword this:

"any logic value observed at one or more of the circuit's primary outputs differs between the original design and the design with the fault. " what does "differs between" mean? (I am native speaker btw!) I thought the fault officially exists when the output matches the contrived faulty model? i.e.: if it doesn't match the faulty model, then it's not officially a fault (except maybe the test is faulty!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.116.33 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that is confusing. I reworded that phrase, as requested.[1]

Feel free to further improve that text and the rest of the article. --DavidCary (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

this bit looks like wonky english as well: "Fault activation establishes a signal value at the fault model site that is opposite of the value produced by the fault model"

Fault sensitisation means you might use Boundary Scan JTAG to set permanent inputs as a test pattern, and pass them through, doesn't it? Then you know what the output is supposed to be if it's faulty or if it's "no fault detected" (as opposed to "unfaulty"... 'cos you're never guaranteed are you?!)

Automatic? Generation?

I'd be nice if this article explained where the terms automatic and generation in automatic test pattern generation stem from and if this article compared ATPG to non-automatic test pattern generation (if there is any). Thanks, --Abdull (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)