I believe what SkpFX is saying and clockmender shows you in the screenshot is that the object named ‘cube’ does not have the property named ‘Prop Test’. That property belongs to the object named ‘cube.001’ so you would select that object as the prop setting.
Select the correct object and changing the ‘Prop Test’ value of ‘cube.001’ does change the x rotation of ‘cube’.
so does the procedure work or not?
@ SkpFX
again for the sake of fairness I will elaborate …
To prove something in a piece of software is working or it is not (but this also applies to everything in life) you do a test… a test that you can not only do yourself but that others can perform also… such that when performed you can collect a set of results to say… this worked or it did not … until you get past the 'it worked or it did not ’ all the " you should have done this or you should have done that’s" are of no consequence…
That is what that procedure above ‘is’…
a test… y
ou work it and you say…
‘yes’ this worked on my end with my setup…
or…
‘no’ it did not work for me…
this is what is known in science as ‘empirical’ …
in my effort to figure out what the issue I had with a particular file I posted a question here…
I quickly decided it would be easiest if I set a proceedure out for others to test…
if the test works for others just fine I know the a certain amount of answers to the question as to what the problem I am having is…
Those who worked the proceedure properly and gave their results helped me the most…
Trying to second guess what was wrong with my proceedure is of some help but not much…
in the mean time there are other places on the internet to ask quesitons… BA is not the be all and end all to the Blender community…
I never depend on just BA… I always ask in multipul locations…
I used your procedure exactly, except
when you say I used your procedure exactly,
but then you say except…
your contradicting your self starting with the ‘except’ …
I’m just asking if the procedure worked or not…
I’m not understanding why that is difficult question to answer… if it’s working then say ‘no’… if it is working then say ‘yes’…
No the procedure didn’t work. Go file a bug report. 
You’re just being silly Norvman. You complained that you couldn’t get it to work. The path entry field stayed red. I showed you why. You were using the wrong object. Every step of your procedure was correct, except you were choosing the object that you set the driver on, rather than the one that contained the property you were trying to use.
If you can’t understand “exactly, except” and quit reading whenever you see it, then I’m sorry. I should have chosen my words more carefully. 
If you can’t understand “exactly, except” and quit reading whenever you see it, then I’m sorry. I should have chosen my words more carefully.
well same here…
I didn’t matter that the procedure I layed out in post #3 had a mistake in it or not… all that had to be give at that point was did it work or not… but you making in it about everything expect my original question that I was posing…
the problem has already been solved and all that is left is… what ever your arguing about which I still don’t understand… and every question I ask to try and figure that out you only post some new personal Attack…
You’re just being silly Norvman.
That’s quite a piece of work Norv.
Then you concoct this "Oh, it’s an RNA, DNA thing.
No matter how deep you go “digging”
Just give it up.
On top of it all you constatly miss qoute me trying to turn your arguement over some mistake in a proceedure I was only asking a conformation of working and not working on…
Claiming that the whole thread was started because of the procedure in post #3 which it was not… go back to post #1 for the reason the thread was started… post #3 came out of Revolts comments in post #2 … post #3 was a response to clarify my question and getting at the problem I was having…
the answer to my issue was answered else where… not here in this thread…
this all seems like a hugh waste of space IMHO …
I have tried to be fair and explain everything as best I can…
I really don’t see that I hold any more responsibility to it than this…
any problems you have beyond that… well is not a blender specific problem and I think belongs on some other forum on another part of the Internet…
Most of that was in reply to your passive aggressive comment…
some people just don’t seem to have the patience to read through all the material before the post…
however…
but I am glad to see most people were able to put together the test and work it out…
Everybody who was able to “work it out” came to the same conclusion I did… you can’t use “cube” to look up a property of “cube.001”
That’s why I say you’re being silly.
now Ctrl+V to paste your ‘data path’ into that field…
it goes in just fine but stays red… indicating that there is some problem preventing it from working…
copy ‘var’ into the Scripted Expression field to finish the connection…
everything should work from that point forward…
but I’m still getting red… and the driver doesn’t work…
This procedure use to work like a charm…
not sure what has changed…
It does work like a charm, if you choose the object that actually contains the property.
More passive aggressiveness…
any problems you have beyond that… well is not a blender specific problem and I think belongs on some other forum on another part of the Internet…
You see the big difference between us is… If it was working for you, and not working for me, I’d try to learn something from it. This all started over in the eyelid bone weights thread. You made a claim that was simply wrong, given what the OP asked for, and I said so. You got butt hurt and can’t get over it. Clockmender and Richard Marklew have both said you were linking to the wrong object.
Go back and look at posts #4 and 5
I give a straight forward, respectful answer and you start going off. It’s the same answer that Richard and Clock gave you.
Yet I’m the one you’ve got a problem with…
Here’s 46 cases of the term “exactly, except” on the nasa.gov website. Rocket scientists seem to agree that the two words can be used together.
https://www.google.com/#q=site:nasa.gov+“exactly,+except”&*
Your hurt because I disagreed with you about eyelid bones, and that’s fine, cause it really isn’t a thing to me.
the answer to my issue was answered else where… not here in this thread…
There is no place you can go where a custom property of “cube.001” will be found on “cube”
You are being silly.
Bye now.
I said
Select the correct object and changing the ‘Prop Test’ value of ‘cube.001’ does change the x rotation of ‘cube’.
Using the directions from your previous post I have corrected your error in bold:
This then works as I expect you wanted it to.
Thank you very much for your input…
I also note that you did not lambast me on a personal level …
…
@ SkpFX
Everybody who was able to “work it out” came to the same conclusion I did… you can’t use “cube” to look up a property of “cube.001”
but your the only one who resorts to personal attacks on me…
Your hurt because I disagreed with you about eyelid bones, and that’s fine, cause it really isn’t a thing to me.
no no… I was adding information that might have been useful to the person who was trying to do what he was doing…
your the one who got butt hurt because I was trying to help… and your the one who started being aggressive toward me in that thread…
I backed off because the thread starter stated that your answer was what he was looking for not my answer…
I bent my respect to the person who started the thread…
but here in the Thread that ‘I’ start where I have a question I’m trying to solve…
I tell you that others are being more helpful than yourself and what do you do?
you…
tell me I’m Silly…
tell me I’m butt hurt…
tell me I’m a piece of work…
So prove to me that you didn’t come over to this thread to anything other than make trouble
…
So prove to me that you didn’t come over to this thread to anything other than make trouble
Like I said before. Go back and read the history. I was completely respectful, and was the first person to identify where the problem was. You are the one that started acting silly. I said it worked for me when I chose the proper object. You immediately start into demanding that I somehow justify my answer to you. I said things like “I followed your procedure exactly, except I chose the other cube for the driver variable” and rather than learning from the response, you go off that exactly and except can’t be used in the same sentence.
I ask anyone new to this discussion to go back and read the first few posts. I was completely respectful until norvman ramped up the idiocy.
Norvman, The simple fact that you won’t just let this die would seem to show that you’re the one who wants to make trouble. I think it is SILLY!
The simple fact that you won’t just let this die would seem to show that you’re the one who wants to make trouble. I think it is SILLY!
the fact that you won’t let this die and that you continue to call people SILLY! (note the caps here)… proves that you are the one who won’t let this die… and that it’s your pride of not wanting to admit that you can and will be wrong is what is the problem in this thread…
Like I said before… I backed off in the other thread we were talking weights and Eye lid riggs…
So lets have everyone go over there see just how butt hurt I was when I left there…
and then after that you chased me down over to this thread to make trouble…
and your still doing that…
I said it worked for me when I chose the proper object. You immediately start into demanding that I somehow justify my answer to you. I said things like "I followed your procedure exactly, except I chose the other cube for the driver variable
But here is the thing… as witnessed by others… that if you followed my procedure exactly… then it would not have worked for you…
the procedure does not work… and I know it does not work not just because of the people in this Forum and Thread pointing that out but because others in other forums and threads have pointed it out…
so I ask you again… does the procedure work? even with your fixes?
and by the way I’m not just a
piece of work…
Silly person…
butt hurt…
now I’m an Idiot too…
Thank you for your comments…
and then after that you chased me down over to this thread to make trouble…
Chased you down? You posted a question. I gave a respectful answer.
so I ask you again… does the procedure work? even with your fixes?
I’ve said it over and over… Yes the procedure works, as designed, but only with the fix. There is nobody here, or on any other forum, that can make it work without picking the proper object for the driver variable. That was why I said “That’s quite a piece of work, Norvman”, in post #14. You claimed that the answer was some sort of RNA path problem, when you weren’t even picking the proper object. If you pick the proper object it works perfectly.
And you claim…
…and that it’s your pride of not wanting to admit that you can and will be wrong is what is the problem in this thread…
That’s quite a stretch. It was you who posted the problem. It was me who showed you the (verified) solution to the problem. Yet you want to twist it somehow to make me the one who’s wrong. The original problem had a silly error, and you can’t admit that. I think it’s your pride that’s getting in the way here.
Your procedure didn’t work. I showed you how to fix it. It should have ended there. I don’t think you’re silly, but I do think you’re acting silly, because your pride won’t let you admit you were wrong.
You posted a support question, it was solved, and it only became an issue because you’ve got a personal problem with the person who provided the solution. That’s not my problem, it’s yours.
There is nobody here, or on any other forum, that can make it work without picking the proper object for the driver variable.
I’m not in disagreement with that…
I’ve said it over and over… Yes the procedure works, as designed, but only with the fix.
this statement I do not agree with…
It was me who showed you the (verified) solution to the problem.
no… the solution is not verified… not by anyone… many have made input to the fix… but none on this forum have even solved the example much less the original problem…
Your procedure didn’t work.
yes… and I knew I did not work…
I showed you how to fix it.
no… you showed me some problems with the procedure… but you did not get it to work ‘exactly’ (except with your fix even)…
your confidence is blinding you…
That’s why it doesn’t end there…
I don’t think you’re silly, but I do think you’re acting silly,
some might like to split those hairs but I’m not one of them…
because your pride won’t let you admit you were wrong.
My morality won’t let me go along with the falsehood…
You posted a support question, it was solved,
the original problem was solved… as stated in post #12
you are the one who continues the bickering over the example …
not even the original problem…
which has long since been solved…
job completed…
payment on the way…
I’m only still talking to you here just to test your statement that you would change when proven wrong…
yet having presented you the obvious evidence that your mistreating people by name calling and 'chasing them down to try and bully your way around…
your still here trying to bully… so your words convict you at every turn…
your not really arguing with me… your argument is with yourself…
just as I did in the other thread …
You could have backed off once shown that your “piece of work” comments weren’t helpful to the subject at hand…
but your sill here and that’s really all that needs to be demonstrated…
Twice you ask for my input.
In post #29…
So prove to me that you didn’t come over to this thread to anything other than make trouble
…
In post #31…
so I ask you again… does the procedure work? even with your fixes?
Then you claim that my being here is proof that I just want to cause trouble.
In post #33…
but your sill here and that’s really all that needs to be demonstrated.
I’m done being trolled by you Norvman. This is insanity. The example didn’t work because you picked the wrong cube. No amount of digging in the RNA(post #12) or flat out denials, is going to change that.
Added to ignore list!
Added to ignore list!
Thank you that’s exactly what I was hoping for…
