Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 87.113.116.33 - "" |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Electronics}}. Tag: |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Electronics|importance=low}}
}}
=== EDASeeAlso ===
[[Template:EDASeeAlso]]
To the EDASeeAlso template editor:
Line 44 ⟶ 50:
:This is wikipedia, after all. You can SUBST the template text, (type <nowiki> {{subst:EDASeeAlso}} </nowiki>). 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. [[User:LouScheffer|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!) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.113.116.33|87.113.116.33]] ([[User talk:87.113.116.33|talk]]) 14:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: I agree that is confusing. I reworded that phrase, as requested.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Automatic_test_pattern_generation&action=historysubmit&diff=446992329&oldid=446982553]
: Feel free to further improve that text and the rest of the article. --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] ([[User talk: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, --[[User:Abdull|Abdull]] ([[User talk:Abdull|talk]]) 23:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
| |||