LabVIEW Idea Exchange

About LabVIEW Idea Exchange

Have a LabVIEW Idea?

  1. Browse by label or search in the LabVIEW Idea Exchange to see if your idea has previously been submitted. If your idea exists be sure to vote for the idea by giving it kudos to indicate your approval!
  2. If your idea has not been submitted click Post New Idea to submit a product idea to the LabVIEW Idea Exchange. Be sure to submit a separate post for each idea.
  3. Watch as the community gives your idea kudos and adds their input.
  4. As NI R&D considers the idea, they will change the idea status.
  5. Give kudos to other ideas that you would like to see in a future version of LabVIEW!
Top Kudoed Authors
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Visual indication that a structure is hiding code beyond its boundary


Just following up on a sub-idea raised within this recent idea from tst: LabVIEW should break VIs which have hidden code.  I *almost* like tst's idea, but IMO it is a bit too heavy-handed:

  • YES, I want better information when there is hidden code on my diagram, but...
  • NO, I don't want my code to break!


The Idea:

If a structure hides code beyound it's boundary, then provide a visual indication. For example, the edge of the structure could be coloured red to alert the user that something unexpected is going on.



I should also point out the main objections I had to this idea:


  1. Code can be hidden in other ways as well (behind structures, under other nodes or VIs) and this won't cover those.
  2. The hidden code might be in an unopened subVI or another part of the diagram and you won't know it's there unless you actually have the structure in front of you. This isn't a big deal if the hidden code doesn't do anything, but if it creates a bug (especially one which is not obvious), you would want to know it's there even if you're not actually looking at it.

tst: Your objections are more relevant in the context of your original idea (and I gave my counter-objections there).


This idea makes no mention of "other" hidden code. It is just about code hidden beyond the boundary of a structure.



> This idea makes no mention of "other" hidden code


No, but that doesn't mean the issue can be ignored. If the idea only solves part of a problem, than it's possible that it should not be implemented and that something else which does solve the rest of the problem should be implemented instead.


Kudos to both ideas. I want some indication that I have hidden code. Current way (no indication) is unsatisfactory.

I'd prefer it'd be impossible to hide code that way. No structure should be able to minimized so it happens and blocks should be pushed away from each other if dropped over each other. A indication would be an acceptable 2nd option. Smiley Happy /Y

Any hidden code should be avoided. The new "minimal energy BD auto arrangement method" idea, presented by Jeff Kodosky at NIWeek 2012, would make visible everything automatically.


> I'd prefer it'd be impossible to hide code that way.


Then I would suggest voting for the other idea or creating a third physics-based idea.


crelf wrote:

Does this still work?

Yes, it does indeed still work (LV2012) - but only for structures-covering-structures, not for hidden code such as the example in this idea.


(Nice tip though! Smiley Wink)


Good job fabric. Kudos..