Adding or removing an element from strict typ def cluster changes cluster default?

[Anne Zuo]

Hi All,

I have a big strict typ def cluster.  I put it into a vi with all default values.  The problem is, whenever I add or remove an element from the strict typ def, I find the cluster default values change, they are all shifted.

Anyway to solve this problem?

Thanks for any help.

Anne 

[altenbach]

Can you explain what you mean by "shifted"? Can you attach the type definition?

[Ben]

I made the suggestion of using a sub-VI to define default values in my Type Def Nugget as illustrated with this image.

LVOOP offer the ability to define the defauly values if you really want to avoid using a sub-VI.

Thoughts on what I suspect is happening:

IN a Strict type def the look is completely governed by the definition but the DATA is NOT! When type defs are updated the old version is complete removed and the new one is used in its place. So the data is not part of the type def. (except in LVOOP).

Ben

[Anne Zuo]

[altenbach · Accepted solution]

Could you attach the "ctl" instead? Also, what's your LabVIEW version?

[Anne Zuo]

sure. here is the strict typ def control.  My labview is 8.5.

Thank.

[altenbach]

I cannot reproduce the problem in LabVIEW 8.5.1 and 8.6.

[Anne Zuo]

How comes?  My labview is 8.5.1.   Maybe you did it in a wrong way.  The screen copy in doc file shows you the steps.

I guess Ben is right.  Data type is part of the typ def, but not values.  He suggests to use subvi and bundle in names to define default values.  It woks that way.  The problem is:

*  I have too many big typ def.  If use subvi and bundle by names to define default value, it will take a lot of time.

*  even that way, if I remove one element from the typ def, the subvi for default value will be broken.

Thanks any way.

[altenbach]

---

Anne Zuo wrote:

How comes?  My labview is 8.5.1.   Maybe you did it in a wrong way.  The screen copy in doc file shows you the steps.

---

Well, there is no "wrong way" because you did not relly provide detailed step-by-step instructions. 😉

Still, after a bit of playing around, I was able to reproduce some anomaly similar to what you describe so maybe there is some problem.