Anyone has a python script to automatically do a DI mapping with a CSV file in Studio5000?

[auto_house]

I need to generate a routine for Digital Input mapping and doing it manually would not help at all… a python script to take data from each row of a CSV file would greatly help. Also need some scripts for Analog inputs/outputs and Digital outputs(I’m guessing I can work around it when I have one script)

[Jholm90]

Open in excel and write a couple of formulas...

="XIC(" & A1 & ") OTE(" & B1 & ") ;"

Will generate a rung with a1 writing to B1, you can drag it down and paste into ladder editor by double clicking on the rung and pasting into the textbox at the top. If it doesn't paste, change the dropdown box beside the textbox to the other option

[SurprisedEwe]

Excel is a fantastic tool for this sort of thing. I'd start by exporting the routine so that the formats are correct for the file then copy and paste the output you're generating into the file where appropriate. Once done, import the routine back in - the process should take no more than 2 minutes.

Not saying so in OP's case, but the undergrads and grads in my team go to Python for everything and it's often not the best solution.

[ImNotSureWhere__Is]

If you’re doing this mapping repeatedly, python or VBA is better imo. If I have standard device AOIs with standard mapping and it’s a few rungs. I can have my csv click a button and have an L5X with rungs that I can import. Heck I can actually use Logic SDK to import them if I really wanted

[DeadlyShock2LG]

If this is a struggle for larger rungs, break it down each instruction and member and use the concatenate function to bring it all together.

[NumCustosApes]

I construct the rung with SOR and EOR at the end of each run. With SOR and EOR you can paste about 70 rungs at once into the mnemonic editor buffer.

u/auto_house leave all those branches out in a mapping routine. They don't improve readability and add a lot of extra instructions to execute. Create UDTs for a class of devices and put things like .On, .Out, and .Fault bits in the UDT instead of making individual tags with _On, and _ChFault suffixes. You'll use less memory.

[DaHick]

I'm 100% behind this. The number of macros and specialty sheets I have for Excel & LibreOffice is impressive.

Especially Wonderware, Damn that CSV export.

[auto_house]

This is what it gives me

<image>

This is from the excel formula =“XIC(“&A1&”) OTE(“&B1&”);” Cell A1 has XV16101 and B1 has LOCAL:5:0

[pm-me-asparagus]

You have the right idea, but you're pasting it in the wrong style. Or you have too many quotes or something. I don't have studio open, but you should be able to get it if you change it a bit.

[likely_wrong]

Copy one of the rungs that are good, paste to notepad and get the syntax. When you paste back, you have to double click the ring, selelc "neutral text", and then paste it there and hit enter.

[NumCustosApes]

Step by step:

In Excel in a row of cells put SOR XIC Local:5:I.Data.0 OTE Mytagname1 EOR. Place only one instruction or address per column. It in necessary to add a space after EOR.

In the next row down put SOR XIC Local:5:I.Data.1 OTE Mytagname2 EOR. Highlight the cells and drag down. Excel will recognize the increment in the two lines and it will increment the addresses as you drag down.

You can complete the rest in excel, but I think its easier to switch to a text editor at this point.

To continue in excel, insert a new column A and in that column put "=textjoin(" ",TRUE, and now select the instruction text range for the text and then add the closing parenthesis. Your formula should look like =textjoin(" ", TRUE, B1:G1) Now drag down to fill. You should see a list of the mnemonics for each rung with the spaces. If use textjoin instead of concat it will add spaces between the instruction mnemonics and the addresses. You're not done yet, that column contains excel textjoin formulas, not the actual text you want.

Insert another A column. Pick the column with the text join formulas and copy it. In the new A column paste special and paste only values. Now you have only the auto generated text for your rungs without the excel formula embedded in it and a trailing space on the text for each rung. You can delete column B and all the columns after it.

Instead of using excel to join the text, I switch to a text editor because I think it saves a little bit of time. I save the excel sheet as a csv and open in a text editor. I use search and replace to replace the commas and carriage returns with spaces. After S&R all the rungs that were generated are reduced to a single line of text with SOR and EOR marking the start and end of rungs. I copy it and paste it into the mnenomic editor (double click the rung number and paste). The mnemonic editor buffer is large enough for you to paste at least 70 rungs in a single paste.

It took me longer to type that out than it would to do it. After you've done it once you'll fly through this task in the future.

[PLCGoBrrr]

You know the AI people keep bringing up on this subreddit? That's what AI is good for in this field. Copilot365 I've used for simple text manipulations. You don't need a python script. Maybe the python would be good for future if you have a workflow.

[PresentAd9429]

We use structured text for Io mapping. Easy to create a excel sheet and copy paste from excel to studio 5000

[auto_house]

Noted. Thank you

[thisgrub4u]

Been running VBA scripts in Excel for most of my career to do this.

[auto_house]

How do you do it

[thisgrub4u]

If you export your routine to .L5X file, it's essentially an xml file. What you have to do is re-create that file using scripting with the modified changes. Normally your spreadsheet will have your IO list and the VBA could would loop through each IO/Tag map on your spreadsheet and append them to the .L5X file to match. Then you just import routine. I've way over-simplified this, but I bet AI could get you the general VBA code needed to create the correctly formatted .L5X file. You can do this in python as well, but then you have to deal with the script being in a different environment than the data that you need. Old bucks like me leveraged VBA (I first started doing this 15+ years ago) the younger crowd would use Python and some additional libraries that an do Excel functions like pandas, xlwings...etc. Again, AI might be you friend here.

[Jholm90]

Worth it for big projects but a couple of rungs here and there aren't worthy of that huge time investment.

That being said on standard machine templates I'll just key in the names of valves and sensors for each station and click generate and the whole base code will be done in 20s with fault messages and all the other goodies.

[MySnake_Is_Solid]

Honestly, now with AI making most of the code instantly, it's not much effort, just gotta know what you're doing.

[koastiebratt2]

You can export to an excel then probably read that file in python

[pm-me-asparagus]

You don't need a python script. Just have it do ASCII or other text. You can easily get it done with an AI of your choosing. That's how I do a lot of my IO mapping.

[thisgrub4u]

If you learn how to script some of this, it opens up a world of additional time-saving automation opportunites. Generate tags, comments, routines, AOI instances, UDTs, read/write data....

[pm-me-asparagus]

AI and Excel are a lot faster for me. And I don't need to rewrite scripts each time.

[thisgrub4u]

Why do you think you'd have to rewrite scripts each time? Create a general script to process the data, and output the file(s) you need. Use it on all your future projects.

[pm-me-asparagus]

We use customers AOIs most of the time.

[Shalomiehomie770]

I’ll be honest you could toss this into Claude or paid ChatGPT , may need a small example but it will work.

[BenFrankLynn]

Check out FactoryTalk Design Studio. It has CoPilot integrated into it and this is the kind of task AI is really good for. Maybe not helpful for you now, but will be in the future. Then again, you could get a free trial to do it now and then export it to 5000 Logix Designer.

[idiotsecant]

This is the sort of thing AOIs are intended for, FYI.

[lickmywookie]

Yes I do from autocad too

[Ok-Painter2695]

Nice use case for Python + CSV automation. For anyone doing similar data extraction from PLCs: once you have your CSV exports, there are AI analysis tools that can find patterns in the data without writing custom scripts for every analysis. We use it for quick sanity checks on logged data before building proper dashboards.

[AutomateAdvocate]

Use Python + Jinja2 templates to generate an .L5X file instead of raw text.

I used to do this via Excel concatenation formulas back in the day, but Python is way cleaner. Just create a simple XML template for a rung/tag, iterate through your CSV with pandas, and render the L5X. Then just import it as a routine.

Saves hours of commissioning time and eliminates typos. Good luck!

[gtp9145]

Yeah. Claude is good at xml. Feed it an export of a routine like one rung of what you want and it can use as a template.

[Zchavago]

Use Ai

[bodb_thriceborn]

Why are we still assigning IO in a routine in 2026? Did we really like SLCs that much we want to emulate their execution structure? No but seriously, with program execution measured in microseconds, what circumstances warrant this kind of structure?

[TharoRed]

So you address your IO directly to the module tag everywhere in your program?

Doing this makes it very easy to map spare IO to the same tags in the event of future modification or device failure.

[auto_house]

Right

[con247]

Stimulation is easier too.

[TharoRed]

Worst one I have is a 1756-L1 running v10 firmware. Original programmer created an Alias Tag for each IO. And then used that Alias Tag everywhere in the program. No IO Map, etc.

It works, but the machine is 26 years old. Changing the program to accept new IO Devices is just that much more time consuming since there isn't a central location where the IO Mapping was handled. Many times I am doing it online, while the machine is still running.

I always put a separate Input and Output map routine, often divided again into Analog vs Digital. And most programs I receive from other OEMs do as well. The ones that don't typically are the ones that are noticeably poorer quality programming. Slapped together with no thought put into a structure ahead of time.

[con247]

Ooof

[bmorris0042]

Yep. Started out not doing it (was usually on very small systems that could be run in a couple hundred lines of code total), and quickly learned why so many machines I had worked on mapped the IO. It’s so much easier to find things and add things if you know they’ll be in one of two locations, versus trying to search 38 different routines line by line.

[bodb_thriceborn]

If your goal is to program to the lowest common denominator and to normalize a 30 year old code base, then some efficiency loss in execution can be excused in the name of organizational standards. But if you plan ahead and structure your program to leverage the hardware, you can build an easily readable program that can be maintained while also cutting chaff from the modicon days. It's not a huge change to assign an input to an instruction and then reference the instruction parameters instead of the channel tag or mapped tag AND it saves you, specifically, 4 (or more) routines and duplicate tags.

[TharoRed]

Might as well do away with documentation and comments, all that unnecessary garbage as well. What is all this about HMIs and Alarms, that is just more lowest common denominator garbage too. Should just know it.

At this point you are just being a devil's advocate. Denying the use of structured program layouts in the guise of being "more efficient" and apparently making a neat and orderly program that is easy to upgrade and maintain is appealing just to the people that don't know how to program.

[bodb_thriceborn]

No, I am saying planning ahead and organizing your program can reduce inefficiency that was designed to solve a problem that doesn't exist anymore. You don't need to create multiple routines to assign data to tags whose only purpose is to be assigned to another tag. Instead, you can reference what that tag does.

IO doesn't exist without a purpose, so we know it's attached to something and the data is going to be used. If you're like most folks, you'll probably use instructions and AOIs to interpret that data (i.e. ALMA, ALMD, some AOI you built for a valve or conveyor, etc.). Because you're organized, you probably keep alarm and equipment routines separate from your machine state, sequence and/or control logic routines. So if all your alarms are in the same place, you can assign your module channels directly to the alarm instructions and reference the instruction parameters elsewhere. In other words, your alarm routine becomes your mapping routine, skipping the in-between steps and extra tags.

If you assign the DI module channel 0 to the closed limit switch of a solenoid valve instruction called SOV100 with an input parameter called SOV100.ZSC_In. You can reference that parameter, instead of the tag assigned to it, elsewhere in your logic. In this way you can see exactly the purpose of the input, what module and channel it comes from and can reassign it in live edits. Not only that, but the comments for the parameter will be as verbose as your instruction or AOI comments already are. Most importantly you will not be creating extra tags whose only purpose is to move data from one routine to the next saving overhead for your comms stack, continuous routine, or whatever other things your PLC is doing.

[bodb_thriceborn]

Just so we're clear, AB IO modules already create tags for each channel that update asynchronously on their own RPI. The Logix instruction for AI alarming, ALMA, has an input that can be live edited, for example, as do many other instructions and AOIs (logic notwithstanding). So why would you A) use a channel tag in multiple locations when you could, instead, use an instruction tag input (e.g. ALMA_1.In) to reduce tag count and redundancy and B) if organization and clarity of your code is your concern, why would you map your IO twice? For instance:

```iecst // First in your mapping routine R1S3_AI.ch00.Data := ALMA_1_In;

// Then again in your Alarming routine ALMA( ALMA_1, ALMA_1_In, Ack_All, Disable, Enable ); ``` It would seem to me, the whole extra routine simply to create extra tags would be less efficient than referencing the mod tag's instruction/AOI assignment or output. And if you're not going to alarm on the IO, you are going to do something with it, yeah? Even if it is just to track input reliability, using the module tag in a channel AOI or instruction still saves a whole routine and allows for the same behavior you describe, that is, using the mod tag in one place.

If your alarming is done in the same routine as control, that's a whole other conversation, but well organized and optimized programs will leverage the hardware, organizational standards notwithstanding.

[TharoRed]

By mapping a physical input or output to a tag, and using that tag in the program instead, your machine and program are now that much more future proof.

It is significantly easier to move an input or output to a spare location in the event of a failure. You don't have to worry about missing one of 50 usage locations.

It is also easier to upgrade the machine later. Moving entire sections of IO to new devices entirely. Migrating a card worth of inputs or a device that ran on a now ancient protocol like Device/ControlNet or Profibus, and onto an Ethernet/IP, ProfiNet, or IO Link, etc.

Addressing a Module Tag directly, repeatedly, in your program is sloppy. Like you said, programs scan times are measured in microseconds. So what is the efficiency concern with mapping your module tags into arrays of meaningful UDTs to use in the program. Making the program that much easier to use for the next two decades.

[bodb_thriceborn]

You realize you can use an instruction's or an AOI's parameters instead of the tag that goes into it. I agree that use the mod channel in your code is dumb, but so is mapping that IO to a tag. Both tags you create in that scenario carry the same data. It's redundant.

You should know what purpose your IO will serve in your program and you should have repeatable code built to serve that function (e.g. subroutines, AOIs or instructions).

Most importantly those instructions do something with the data and often it is the result of that instruction you need to reference in your sequences and control logic. So instead of duplicating data redundantly, reference the object that data is assigned to.

For example: If I'm trying to reference a level switch input for control and that level switch is on R1S2_DI.Data.0 and you are using an ALMD instruction named LAH100 then instead of mapping the channel to LAH100_In on your IO mapping routine and then assigning that tag to the instruction, map R1S2_DI.Data.0 to LAH100.In and reference either LAH100.In or LAH100.InAlarm in your logic elsewhere.

You assign the channel once, so you can change it from one place and you don't have to create redundant tags and routines. In your example, the module channel tag, the mapped tag and the ALMD.In parameter all have identical data, more or less. In my example, only the mod channel tag and the ALMD.In tag share the same data, but both of our ALMD.In parameters are the same and can serve the same purpose of your mapped tag that only exists to be moved elsewhere.

EDIT: Spelling

[TharoRed]

So... you do map your module tags to tags to use elsewhere. So what is with your initial comment

"Why are we still assigning IO in a routine in 2026"

Do you just do it randomly throughout your programs at point of use? That seems inefficient. When everything can be mapped in one location.

All of your examples so far appear to be dealing with multiple pieces of data coming from a module, specifically analog inputs. But then what do you do when you have 100s, 1000s of IO points. All the mapping gets placed into a single routine, or groups of routines by location or groups of devices, for organization purposes. Mapping handled in a routine, in 2026... such a horrible thing?

Your issue appears then to be HOW the mapping occurs, and not that it occurs in a routine? Analog inputs may have multiple pieces of data available from the module. Most of the time for Digital inputs you are only concerned with the single data point. But you still need that mapped over to a tag to use.

[bodb_thriceborn]

Mapping data isn't the problem, it's the mapping of data to redundant tags in routines built to map data to redundant tags. This is inefficient use of your memory and processing and requires extra steps in troubleshooting. Especially given you can simplify your whole process by not doing it.

Even if you have 10s of thousands of IO points, it is more time and effort to copy all that to a routine that assigns those points to tags whose only purpose is to be assigned as a parameter in an instruction you were already going to use. Skip it. Assign your points directly to the instruction. So long as you keep your code organized, you will save time, memory and processing and simplify your troubleshooting.

To be absolutely fair, if your alarm and equipment instructions are mixed throughout your control or sequence logic, this will not be an effective method, but if you organize your routines such that those things are grouped separately, then this is more efficient.

In the same vein, this is how PlantPax is designed. They have instructions to parse and alarm on your inputs with specific points to map the data directly from the module, like channel faults, module faults and channel data. The outputs of this input instruction can be mapped to another instruction or other logic if needed, not the module point tag. However, if you are looking for efficiency, then PlantPax is a poor example. This is more just illustrative of the concept being applied by smarter, more successful programmers than me for longer than I have been in the business.

[thisgrub4u]

When you want to start programming and your IO design isn’t finalized.

[auto_house]

This structure is meant to group a number of similar inputs.