LabVIEW Idea Exchange

Currently, you can place a probe on a wire while developing, which is an indicator of the data on a wire. I want the ability to CONTROL the data on the wire, with a data forcing mechanism.

The implementation would be very simple... right click on a wire, and in the context menu the option "Force" would be right under "Probe." It would pop up a window of the forcing control, and while the VI is running and forcing is set to "Enable", the programmer can control the values that pass on the wire. If the force window were set to "Disable", the data in the wire would be completely controlled by the VI's logic.

I think the implementation by NI could be trivially simple. If you only allow a forcing control to be added during edit mode (not while the VI is running), the force could be added as an inline VI (as denoted by the green rectangle on the wire). The code inside the inline VI would be as follows, and the front panel would be "Data Force (1)" as shown above.

Of course, if you could add a force to a wire during runtime like probes, props NI. But I would be PERFECTLY happy if you could only add these force controls in edit mode prior to running.

One level further (and this would be AMAZING, NI, AMAZING): enable and disable certain parts of the cluster that you would like to force and allow the other elements to be controlled by the VI logic. I made the example above because it would be very natural to ONLY force Sensor1 and Sensor2, and letting the output run it's course from your forced input.

Classes? OOP? ... Huh?

Even if you don't (yet) work with LV classes, you may have noticed that they are starting to become increasingly widespread in the LV world. In fact, the excellent new Actor Framework that ships with LV2012 relies heavily on classes. LV classes are great but they can impact on your performance as a developer as your application becomes larger. I'd encourage everyone to click the magic KUDOS button for this idea, since classes will likely affect us all sooner or later!

The problem:

Most class-based architectures contain some degree of linking. One form of linking is inheritance where parent-child relationships are implicitly defined, and another form of linking arises from nesting libraries where classes (e.g.) are placed inside other libraries.

Unfortunately as the linking increases in a project, the IDE starts to become very sluggish! Those who have worked on mid-sized class-based applications know the symptoms:

• Opening the "class properties" window takes 10 seconds or more
• Renaming a class brings the editor to a standstill

For many projects these symptoms are a minor annoyance, but as your project grows they can become a serious impediment to productivity. Why should it take over 30 seconds to modify a class's inheritance?!

Obviously careful design can reduce linking to some extent, but that just postpones the pain. The reality is that all class-based projects start to suffer from these symptoms once they reach a "resonable" size.

The idea:

Improve the responsiveness of the LV editor when working with classes.

• Highly repetitive tasks such as editing a class library's icon deserve a snappy response from the IDE, regardless of how many classes I have loaded!
• Modifying inheritance is a fundamental operation. It should be quick and easy! (See this related idea)
• Placing classes in libraries promotes good project organisation. It should *not* bring the editor to a grinding halt!

Credits:

Others have written about this topic well before me. Here are a few relevant discussions:

• http://lavag.org/topic/15199-editing-an-existing-class/
• https://decibel.ni.com/content/thread/14907?start=15&tstart=0

Feel free to link more! 

I think it would be nice if LabVIEW was smart enough to know that when I drop a For Loop around scalar inputs it doesn't auto-index output tunnels - but rather uses Shift Registers - for matching inputs and outputs.

The common use case for this is with the Error input/output - it annoys me how it becomes an Array output.

As it is already wired, inline and not broken, dropping a For Loop around it should not break my code! 

Reference or Class inputs are other use case too - I want to pass the same thing around not create an Array. 

Shift registers are better than non-auto-indexed tunnels (other option) as they protect the inputs on zero iterations.

This would remove one step required for most use cases, speeding up my development experience.

Cluster Size as a Wired Input:

• Easier to see
• More implicit
• Nearly impossible to forget to set it (if it were a required input).

I propose that Case Selectors should accept any type of reference, and the two cases generated are "Valid Ref" and "Invalid Ref". (This would be very similar to the current behavior of the Case Selector accepting errors with the two cases of "Error" and "No Error".)

The current behavior using "Not a Number/Path/Refnum" is very unintuitive. It requires the programmer to use Not Logic (i.e., do something if the reference is "not not valid").

When I have an array of clusters and I want to locate the array index where a specific element of the cluster has a certain value, I need to first build an array from the Array of Clusters and then search that to find the Array element I want:

It would be nice (and cleaner and likely faster) if I could wire the Array of Clusters into an unbundle by name function and select String[] to get the array of string element to search.

In addition, if the cluster contained nested clusters, I could access them the same way, using the dot notation alrerady supported.  For example, the unbundle would let me select 'cluster1.subcluster2.String[]' to access the subarray of an element.

I think the Array Element Gap should be sizable. This would facilitate lining up FP arrays with other items on the FP, or simply as a mechanism to add more apparent delineation between elements.

The size should be set in the Properties box, not by dragging the element gap with the mouse - that would add too much "cursor noise".

A new Property Node for this feature would complete Idea.

Hello,

As shown in below image we can see that, if I index numeric array and wire it with any of the node from numeric function it gives un-aligned wire whereas as same process if I use Boolean function at output of index it gives well aligned wire.

So due to this numeric function node wire to index out terminal makes our code with full of wire bends which is not as per NI LabVIEW coding standards also.

So here, I want to draw attention for NI, to do some correction to specific numeric function nodes so we can make neat and clean code in LabVIEW.

It is time to put a dent in the floating point "problems" encountered by many in LV.  Due to the (not so?) well-known limitations of floating point representations, comparisons can often lead to surprising results.  I propose a new configuration for the comparison functions when floats are involved, call it "Compare Floats" or otherwise.  When selected, I suggest that Equals? becomes "Almost Equal?" and the icon changes to the approximately equal sign.  EqualToZero could be AlmostEqualToZero, again with appropriate icon changes.  GreaterThanorAlmostEqual, etc.

I do not think these need to be new functions on the palette, just a configuration option (Comparison Mode).  They should expose a couple of terminals for options so we can control what close means (# of sig figs, # digits, absolute difference, etc.) with reasonable defaults so most cases we do not have to worry about it.  We get all of the ease and polymorphism that comes with the built-in functions.

There are many ways to do this, I won't be so bold as to specify which way to go.  I am confident that any reasonable method would be a vast improvement over the current method which is hope that you are never bitten by Equals?.

I would like to be able to create executables that don’t require the runtime engine in LabVIEW. Perhaps a palette of basic functions that can compiled without the runtime engine and an option in the application builder for that. I routinely get executables from programmers that don’t require a runtime installation. I just put it on my desktop and it runs. It would be nice that if I get a request, I could create, build, and send them an exe in an email without worrying about runtime engine versions, transferring large installer files to them, etc.

This idea came from customer Jason Willis during an NIWeek 2012 brainstorm session with LV developers. To me, it seemed like a good idea, so I figured I would post it to the community to flesh it out and see what kudos it gets.

When you have a reentrant VI, you have the one real VI and many clone VIs. Debugging the clones is hard. One way to make it easier might be to make the probes behave like the breakpoints do.

When you put a breakpoint on an individual clone, only that clone gets the breakpoint. But if you put a breakpoint on the real VI, all the clones get that breakpoint. That gives you a way to stop at a point of execution regardless of which clone gets pulled from the clone pool.

We could make probes do the same: if you put a probe on a real VI, any time the block diagram of a clone gets opened, a probe would be added to its wires in the same locations as on the real VI. If you removed the probe from the real VI, all the duplicate probes on the clones would go away too. But if you added a probe to a clone, the other clones would not get a probe.