Can anyone tell me, should the solutions included with the CLD sample exams be considered representative of an program that would pass the CLD exam? It would be nice to know what score they'd actually receive since there are at least a few error here and there in the sample solutions, but knowing if they are a 'pass' would be good enough.
The use of property nodes is mandatory to enable/disable controls and indicators and manipulate controls (focus, value, etc..) however the continuous use of the following might result in some point deduction in style I have seen an entry in the preparation guide that checks if the use of such nodes is minimized, in a program with such operations but it will not cause major trouble.
I think yes the index should be specific coercion dot uses memory i don't an idea of how much it affects the grading part but im pretty sure it does.
in order to stop the event handling loop using the message loop (consumer) there should be a dynamic stop event created and register to the event loop dynamic terminal, and using the generate event from a state in the consumer loop can trigger that event case and stop the event loop
as for the timing you can use the timeout case to timeout after 10 seconds 10 000 ms of inactivity when that case is accessed it triggers a stop/exit event just like pressing the terminate button or stop button in other programs (the timeout should occur if inactivity timeout and card is inserted)
I avoid the use default if unwired because if used on other loop outputs(other than the T/F boolean stop constant) as well it might get messy at some point.
however as long as the program is operating as intended it is a pass and the commented issues will affect the grade between the 75 and 100 i guess
Well I took the test last week so I will let you all know in a few weeks.
I have seen old threads about not using the AF, but I also watch the most recent webinar and looked at some of the CLA prep documents (2016 CLA Success Package) and the AF according to NI is by far the best overall design for interprocess design, coupling, abstraction, etc. In addition, if you look at the samples you can see how easily you can implement some of the requirements without re-inventing the wheel. The entire central error handler should almost be a gimmy with AF. However, I also can see how it could cause people issues, it is not easy or straight forward.
As far as not using OO in the CLA, that seems counter intuitive to me as well. You are almost required to use it in order to implement a simulated and physical layer. Not using OO, would to me, be a huge oversight and if that is truly what NI expects then it cheapens the CLA. If an architect can not use such powerful tools to pass the exam, and if NI is leading people away from these frameworks, then I think NI needs to clarify their position.
The CLA is incredibly subjective and hard to prep for because NI won't tell us what they really want. I am not really critiquing because I don't have a better idea of how to test an architect. We need to show we can do the tasks without memorizing a solution. I just know I have spent years writing very large, complex projects and found this process more stressful than I expected. The tasks are not really that hard, but trying to figure out what NI wants is the challenge. Especially in light of the huge amount of conflicting information out there.
Your post is exactly what I am talking about, and I am not disagreeing with you. You and I have both found people saying don't ever use the AF you are bound to fail, but if you know AF and read these requirements it seems to me to be a great fit. So, yes or no
Like I said I will let you know in a few weeks, so people in the future can look at my samples and see if that style leads to success or not.
re CLD sample exam solutions:
Hi. Yes, the certification sample exam solutions from NI in general are exams that would pass, rather than perfect solutions that might be unrealistic in four hours for most test takers. In particular Style tends to be poor on most of them. If you're able to critique the samples and point out how they could be better, you're probably functioning at the level of the exam and close to ready.
re: AF & OO for CLA exam
Some of those cautions may have been older. AF & OO are great frameworks for the CLA. As you've said, if applied correctly they address many of the requirements with no additional work by the test taker. In fact, there are strong opinions within NI that any architect should know AF & OO (but it's not a requirement). The only caution is be careful and don't let time get away from you, there's a fair amount of setup that happens at the beginning.
Because of the front-end setup, we do strongly caution people who are thinking about using AF or OO for their CLD, since the CLD solution must be functional. It is very difficult to get everything in place and then get the functionality working on a CLD exam within four hours. We've seen it done, and we always tip our hat to that candidate! Perhaps some of the mixed messaging on AF & OO was crossed wires.
Hope this clarifies.
I imagined it had to be something like that, though I think your response may be a good example of the tests needing to be revamped. If you have a technology (OO particularly but AF as well) that you want people to use, and is what a lot of architects use, then I think the tests need to be created in a way that they are more feasible/usable and don't need cautions. It may be as "simple" as making the CLA 5 hours. Of course this is coming from a person who has only taken the exam, and doesn't know if I succeeded so take it with a grain of salt.
I will let everyone know how I did when my score comes back as another data point out there for using OO and AF, with my samples as an idea of my style. I do know that I started to use some OO as part of my solution, only to discover later that the need was not there. To be honest the way the requirements where written where huge hints that an area should be classes with dynamic dispatches, only to discover as I actually "implemented" the requirements classes didn't add anything because all the classes acted identically. So at the last minute I removed the dynamic dispatch VIs, which 20/20 hindsight may have been a mistake.
As it has been said over and over, the time is the challenge, not the code.
Hey all, as promised I said I would let you know how I did and I passed.
So anyone looking at the CLA you can see my examples as a data point for a style using AF that passed. The sample tests were a good starting point and I felt this exam matched the overall design, difficult etc of the samples. I know there is feedback out there about the samples being old or not matching the actual test, I didn't feel that.
As far as where I lost points, they are purposely vague in the feedback so I am trying to read between the lines. But I lost a little because parts of the AF I didn't document that I meant to use them, they just come that way. So I would say if you are using the AF you need to be clear that you are meaning to use some of it's behavior, rather than knowing it is there. So in general my lost points where lack of documentation and not documenting the tags and the UIs or that I meant them to do thing.
I think the AF really helped me, but as far as timing yes I used all 4 hours and could have done with another. I was a good hour in reading the documents and making the initial actors with no tags or messages. I then spent a good amount of time making messages for the UIs (enable ctrls, set ctrl value, etc) and similiarly for the controller, but once they are all there I was able to just go through the requirements doc, drop the msg VIs I wanted where, say covered here, and a comment.
Se good luck everyone and thanks for the discussion.
@Evan, let me greet you too! My congratulations!
Sorry for my previous post, I was confused by some old information... Hope that your examples will help a lot of others to successfully pass the exam!