[MAX/DSC] Unable to archive Citadel data by time interval

[JKSH]

Hello,

I've run into an issue on 2 separate PCs. How do I archive a subset of Citadel data?

Setup

• Win7 x86 and Win7 x64
• LabVIEW 2013 SP1 f2 (with DSC module)
• NI MAX 5.6.0f0

Steps to reproduce 

From NI MAX…

1. Create a new database called "MainDB" in C:\MainDB

From the DSM…

1. Add a new process called "TestProcess". Enable data logging into MainDB.
2. Add a new variable called "Var1" in TestProcess. Enable logging without alarms/events.
3. Update the value of Var1 multiple times to log 60 seconds' worth of data (my test was from 10:24:30 AM to 10:25:30 AM)
4. Stop TestProcess

From NI MAX again…

1. Open My System -> Historical Data -> Citadel 5 Universe, and select Universe -> My Computer -> MainDB -> PC121 -> TestProcess -> Var1
2. Click "View Data" to verify that the trace is there.
3. Create a new database called "BackupDB" in C:\BackupDB.
4. Right-click MainDB -> PC121 -> TestProcess -> Var1, and select "Archive…"
5. Select BackupDB as the Destination Database
6. Enter a time interval. I tried a few different ones:
1. From "No Start Time" to 10:25:10 AM
2. From 10:25:00 AM to 10:25:10 AM
3. From 10:25:00 AM to "No End Time
7. Check "Destroy source data after it has been archived"
8. Click "Finish"

Expected behaviour

• Only the data within the specified time interval should be copied from MainDB to BackupDB
• Only the data within the specified time interval should be deleted from MainDB

Observed behaviour

• Everything is copied from MainDB to BackupDB
• Nothing was deleted from MainDB, even though the dialog says "Destroyed data from "\\PC121\MainDB\PC121\TestProcess\Variable" within specified time interval"

Other notes

• I tried unchecking "Destroy source data after it has been archived", but still the whole database got copied
• I also tried the Archive Traces VI but got the same results

[David-H]

I was able to reproduce this - currently looking into it. 

[David-H]

I want to try doing this with LabVIEW using a programmatic approach instead of just through MAX and DSM. It make take me awhile - you may want to try the same thing on your end. I'm particularly wondering whether this is something recent and if it had worked fine in the past.

[David-H]

Still looking into this at the moment - We will most likely have an update next week. 

[David-H · Accepted solution]

This does seem like a reproducible bug - I'm going to go ahead and put in a corrective action request to R&D.

[JKSH]

Thank you very much for your time, David!

Could you please post the CAR number?

[David-H]

Absolutely - It's CAR #481053.