The current commenting practice in the BD is to place free floating comment number labels and write the comment in a text field as in the example below.
- comment number labels do to stick to the code block. if the code number block is moved the comment has to be moved as well.
- no link between number and comment text block
This unsophisticated way of commenting LabView code lead to the lack of comments in general. Usually a new programmer can understand what happens, but not why a function is implemented like this.
LabView provides the Advanced Code Commenting Functions.
The comment block is more then just a text block. Basically it has a comment ID, the comment itself and a comment category.
By the context menu the following functions are provide:
Adding a comment in the comment block incorporates two steps (after selecting Add Comment from the context menu):
1. Sticking the automatically generated comment ID to a particular code block just by selecting the item the comment belongs to.
This could be any type of code: wires, SubVIs, the whole Case, a particular Case, Sequences....
2. Writing the comment
If the mouse pointer is set over a comment ID the comment is shown like a tool tip and disappears as soon as the mouse is moved away.
I don't like the way that long file paths are shown in path controls and indicators: If the path is longer than the textbox (and it usually is!), the user only sees the first several levels that fit. This can be pretty confusing.
One way to solve this issue is to truncate the path in the middle in such a way that the filename or last folder (which is usually what's most important) is always shown. I've seen this in other UIs and it should be a natural thing for users to understand.
Here's an illustration:
I think this should be a built in feature of the path controls and indicators, accessible through right-click menus and/or the properties menu of the control at edit time.
I think structures should have a better label system. Currently I use free labels of the same color as the loop which looks great and makes the code easy to read and debug. But if I resize my loop I have to manually resize the label as well. I think this should be built into a right-click option.
(structure) rick-click » visible items » Structure label
Large string constants, like to one shown below, can really get in the way. I would like to double-click the border and have it collapse, like the LV 2010 Cluster now does. Putting large string constants in a VI, or rolling them up, are some work-arounds, but this would be easier...
Double-Click the "text" icon to reverse.
My idea is simple: Put the connector pane on the front panel next to the VI icon.
Why: Right clicking to show the conpane means extra clicks that would not be necessary if it was always there. It would also be solve the problem of saving the VI with the connector pane hiding the VI icon.
It'd be usefull for develloper and especially application user to improve graph control by adding to Graph direct access to Plot Visible property on plot legend.
For the time being, you have to go to color and choose transparent or to change visible property dynamically.
I propose control like that ... but we could find another idea to access Visible property.
The provided model templates (fitting, optimization, etc. listed here) have the ancient icon style where the text is actually merged into the single layer of the icon.
Since in the typical scenario the text will be immediately changed to reflect the actual customized model name, it would be reasonable if these icons would have the current text editable in the icon editor instead. Currently, we need to erase the icon background before we can start typing or we get a mess.
For example, in the nonlinear fit model, the text "curve|fit|model" should be in the text tab, and not contained in the icon background (see image).
Suggestion: the model template icons should be blank and the current text should be pre-filled, but editable on the text tab of the icon editor.
Hello, this is my first post in this forum and I don't found ideas about this topic. I hope you like it.
Well, time ago I started to work with LabVIEW, It's powerful, but there are some kind of issues that I want to explain here. Now I'm get involved in a big project for a very big aerospace company, and I'm developing a complex application to acquire some data and process it. Well, this software is in development by some people and I have an idea for the work flow.
I explain it with an example:
If we have in every VI a little data base with some notes ordered by type or something we can read the code or we can start to work in a VI faster. Imagine that you have an event structure with several cases, and you put some notes like you can see in the following image:
Now, I'm able to revise quickly the code reading all the notes and start working only in the "TO DO" zone. But let's do a more complex design: Now I open my project explorer, and open the "Note manager" that could be like this.
Here it is the real advantage of this tool: All the design are done and now I want to improve the application. Lets go only to the notes that interest to me: "TO DO" notes. If I double click on an element LabVIEW opens for me the VI centered in the zone that is interesting for me. And some more: I can check the work I've done and I can add new notes only with a click.
The more complex the project is, the more useful is this system. So, what do you think?
It could be nice to have a context help on coercion dots to see what is the expected type of the data that is supposed to be wired to. This way you can rapidly determine what kind of conversion to use to avoid the coercion dots.
When creating a subVI from a selection, LabVIEW should do two things:
It should also try to make the FP of the subVI cleaner, but that's another matter.
It would be nice if NI added "Mouse Scroll" (and its counterpart filter event) to the supported events. Today, you can do this by using the mouse input VIs in a separate loop and polling, but that's not a very nice solution.
It should be nice to limit the action of Ctrl-B to a selected part of the block diagram.
For the moment the Ctrl-B removes all brocken wires in the complete VI.
Sometime when you have a case structure with multiple cases ... and when you have multiple brocken wires in many cases ...It is usefull to keep non visible broken wires...
The broken arrow (list of pending errors) will then help you to find all locations to modify.
More often than not, one location doesn't work for both. Here's an idea:
When an array leaves a loop with indexing enabled, you get an array which has one more dimension, but quite often you want to concatenate the data to an array with the same number of dimensions.
If the subarrays have the same length, you can use reshape array, but usually they don't and you need to do something like below.
It would be very useful if output tunnels for arrays had an "Enable Concatenate Indexing" option as well, as depicted below, which would do this.
The current boolean diagram constant is potentially confusing and too elaborate.
Confusing, because it almost looks like a toggle switch, so the new user might click on the right half, expecing an unconditional FALSE. However, there are no active areas, and an inversion of the current value occurs no matter where we click.
Too elaborate. All we need to see is the current value! Why do we need to see the "other" value greyed out??? We can guess that by simple elimination. There is too much redundant information, wasting twice as much diagram space than actually needed to display relevant information. The current design also makes e.g. 2D boolean diagram constant very confusing. Have a look at the image. Can you immediately tell that the 2D array on the left is only true on the diagonal? (I did not think so!). Now look at the suggestion on the right. Ahh... much better!
The boolean diagram constant should be smaller, simpler, and cleaner.
The image shows the current design on the left and the suggested design on the right.
What a difference in clarity and economy!!
In line with giving us a better polymorphic VI editor, doing the same for Enums would be great. The current implementation is SSSLLLOOOWWW and unwieldy.
Please re-visit this functionality to make our lives easier.... So many people create enums via rings for exactly this reason. This is just unneccessary.
Clusters are powerful and necessary, but they can easily clutter up otherwise immaculate code. Why not have a "View As Icon" option (a la Express VIs) for cluster constants?
Right-click menu change...
There have been similar suggestions, but I think we need a clean, simple solution.