From Friday, April 19th (11:00 PM CDT) through Saturday, April 20th (2:00 PM CDT), 2024, ni.com will undergo system upgrades that may result in temporary service interruption.

We appreciate your patience as we improve our online experience.

Instrument Control (GPIB, Serial, VISA, IVI)

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Traditional DAQ Resource Names Support in NI-DMM

Solved!
Go to solution

We tried both 15.1 and 16.0 and both fail. 15.0 works.

0 Kudos
Message 11 of 21
(2,271 Views)

Matt,

 

I am going to discuss with our R&D team about this behavior and whether or not it is expected. They might not have updated the documentation or we might be implementing it incorrectly -- I will let you know over the next few days. 

 

In order to try and avoid this issue in the future though, I would suggest changing the code such that you won't run into this problem again. If you have a UI, try making the input a control as opposed to a constant. If you're unable to do that, the safest way of doing it is to rename it is to just put the device name rather than "DAQ::DAQ DEVICE NAME[::INSTR]" because at least we'll be able to safely change it in MAX if there is a discrepancy.

Aulia V.
0 Kudos
Message 12 of 21
(2,266 Views)

Code changes are costly. They can lead to bugs. They require building, testing, deployment, etc. When something works, we don't change it. Our customers don't want us to change things that work.

 

When we upgrade OS or driver versions, we read the documentation, read me, and upgrade instructions.

 

I understand this is old nomenclature, but there is nothing in your documentation or upgrade instructions that indicates it won't continue to work. In fact, your current documentation states explicitly it will work.

 

Suggesting we should modify our code to defend against bugs that NI might introduce seems misplaced at the least. Moreover, I don't see how we can anticipate the bugs that NI will implement.

0 Kudos
Message 13 of 21
(2,262 Views)

Any new information?

0 Kudos
Message 14 of 21
(2,232 Views)

R&D suspects this is a bug, especially since it's worked in previous versions. They're going to investigate and get back to me. Thank you for your patience.

Aulia V.
0 Kudos
Message 15 of 21
(2,228 Views)

Another week... Any word? Should I submit a support request for faster response?

0 Kudos
Message 16 of 21
(2,210 Views)

Seeing as though it is a software bug, it will take a bit to verify if there is a workaround and how they might approach the issue in the future. Submitting a service request won't get you a faster response in this case since we are already in collaboration with our R&D team.

Aulia V.
0 Kudos
Message 17 of 21
(2,207 Views)

Thanks!

 

Have you confirmed that it is a bug? Your last post said R&D "suspects" it is a bug, and that they are going to "investigate and get back" to you.

 

This post says it "is" a bug, so does that mean it is confirmed?

 

I am trying to confirm there is a bug.  If it is confirmed, then I can explain to my customer why there is a cost to develop a workaround for Windows 10.

0 Kudos
Message 18 of 21
(2,202 Views)

Seeing as though it worked before and it doesn't work now and the documentation is the same, it's safe to say that it is a software bug. Go ahead and tell your customers that there will be a cost to development. I would suggest, if possible, to make it a control if there is a GUI associated with the code. Otherwise, keep as the generic constant and then change the name in NI MAX whenever possible so you don't have to edit the code again. Thank you so much for your patience and understanding.

Aulia V.
0 Kudos
Message 19 of 21
(2,200 Views)
Solution
Accepted by Matt_Dennie

Just wanted to let you know that I filed a CAR - 644072 for you! 

Aulia V.
Message 20 of 21
(2,196 Views)