NI Home > Community > NI Discussion Forums

LabVIEW Idea Exchange

Announcements
We've turned on a search before post feature in the LabVIEW Idea Exchange. This new feature will help cut down on the number of duplicate ideas in this space!

The NI Idea Exchange is a product feedback forum where NI R&D and users work together to submit ideas, collaborate on their development, and vote for the ones they like best. View all of the NI Idea Exchanges to post an idea or add your opinion on an existing one today!
New Idea
Intaris

timeout control with occurrences

Status: New
by Trusted Enthusiast on ‎01-24-2013 03:31 AM

How about having a timeout occurrence as an input for functions which support timeouts?

 

I am illustrating a single use case with queues (and a notifier) but I would see this as being beneficial to nearly ALL functions with timeout inputs.

 

Sometimes we'd like to wait for one of a few different functions (an example of mine which springs to mind is the Dequeue primitive).  At the moment we must essentially poll each primitive with a relatively short timeout, see if one responded and then handle accordingly.  This is (for me at least) ugly to look at and introduces polling which I generally don't like.  I'm an events man.

 

Occurrence timeout.png

 

What I propose would be that instead of simply defining a timeout in milliseconds we can define both a timeout (in milliseconds AND an occurrence for the timeout).  If we wire this data to several primitives (all sharing the same occurrence) the first primitive to receive data triggers the occurrence so that the others waiting in parallel return also.

 

In the case where no data arrives, each function waits the defined amount of time but upon timeout DOES NOT fire the occurrence.  This would cover corner cases where you may want different parallel processes to have different timeouts (Yes there are cases although they may be rare).  It is possible to change the "priorities" of the incoming queues in thie way.

 

Background info: One example where I could use this is for RT communication.  Here we multiplex many different commands over TCP or UDP.  On the API side it would be beneficial to be able to work with several strictly-typed queues to inject data into this communication pipe while still maintining maximum throughput.  I don't like using variants or flattened strings to achieve this multiplexing.

 

Being forced to poll means the code must decide between efficiency (low CPU usage) OR response time (setting a very low timeout).  Although the CPU load for polling may be low, it's not something I personally like implementing and I think it's generally to be avoided.

 

There IS a LVOOP solution to this particular problem but not everyone can use LVOOP in their projects (for various reasons).  I can envisage other use cases where interrupting a timeout would be desireable (Event structure, wait on ms, VISA read and so on and so forth).

 

Shane.

AnishPrabuT

Pause on first Error - option for debugging.

Status: New
by Member AnishPrabuT on ‎10-25-2011 07:51 AM

It would help a lot if we have an option called pause on first Error. So that the VI at the node/primitive that generates the error and highlights that node so that user decides to continue or abort.

SteenSchmidt

Open VI reference without refees

Status: New
by Active Participant SteenSchmidt on ‎02-26-2013 04:10 PM - last edited on ‎02-28-2013 08:43 AM by Member MaryH

Hi,

 

I suggest an option added to the Open VI Reference primitive to open that VI reference without any refees. I suggest option bit 10, i.e. option 0x200h:

 

OpenWithNoRefees.png

 

The demand for this arises when you want to access methods and properties of VIs that may be broken, while on the other hand you don't have any need to run those VIs - for instance in one of my current tools (BatchEditor) where I'm tasked with investigating hundreds of VIs simultaneously of which some could be broken or missing dependencies. Other situations would be tools for traversing project trees for instance. Opening a large number of healthy VI references takes a while, and when something is broken in a VI, opening even a single reference could take 30 seconds to minutes.

 

Currently you can suppress the "loading" and "searching" dialogs by setting option 0x20h on the Open VI Reference primitive, but that only loads the refnum silently as far as that will get you. Opening the refnum takes the same amount of time as if you could see those dialogs, and you are rewarded with an explorer window if a dependency search fails. I just want a way to open a VI refnum without even starting to look for dependencies, thus very quickly and guaranteed silently.

 

The relevant people would know that this request isn't that hard to implement, as it is kind of already possibly using some ninja tricks. I'd like such an option to be public.

 

Cheers,

Steen

P@Anand

Array to Spreadsheet String - Corrections required

Status: New
by Trusted Enthusiast ‎01-11-2013 07:54 AM - edited ‎01-11-2013 07:56 AM

I am extensively using the Array to Spreadsheet string Primitive and most of the time I never used the Format string input (Use to wire an empty string constant) and still I am getting the right result what I expect. So I think it would be better if the Required Terminal is changed to an Optional Terminal.

 

It is known that the Array to Spreadsheet string is Polymorphic, but when we wire an array of I32 and DBL the output string is DBL format only. It would be good if the output String adapts the data type that is wired unless otherwise specified by the Format string.

 

Changes needed for Array to Spreadsheet String.png

James_McN

TDMS API Write Only Mode

Status: New
by Active Participant James_McN on ‎11-05-2013 06:09 AM

You don't need to look too deep to find examples of TDMS API "memory leaks". These are not leaks but rather the TDMS API holding meta-data in memory related to the structure of the TDMS file in case you need to read from the file.

 

The biggest issues with this is that it makes TDMS a bad choice for RT applications where you make cause this index to build through file fragmentation however in most RT applications you are only writing. On investigating whether it would be possible to make an RT compatible API (in native LV) it appears that there is no reason for this to increase in a write only mode.

 

So the request is a write only API or flag in the existing API. This should prevent memory build up in loggers.

 

There is a design decision around whether to use a seperate API or have errors thrown if you attempt to read, I think I would be open to either but I think the error would work best to allow easy upgrade of existing applications.

ouadji

Rotate String

Status: New
by Trusted Enthusiast on ‎03-19-2012 06:45 PM

 

                     this time, I hope this idea was not already proposed! :smileyfrustrated:

 

 

original6.png

 


falkpl

Conditional auto-indexing

Status: Completed
by Trusted Enthusiast on ‎06-02-2009 03:12 PM

Auto-indexing of arrays in for and while loops are a nice luxury in LabView.  One option that could save much time would be a menu option to turn on conditional indexing, this would expose a boolean terminal under the auto-index icon to select if the current itteration should add the itteration to the array or skip it.  From an execution standpoint there would only be a minor performance hit (could still preallocate max array size on for loops and automatically return used subset).  This could also work for autoindexed in but would have less use that the autoindeded out case.  I know I have built many conditional arrays inside of a for loop and it requires a case selection and a build array making the code less readable and requires time and thought.  It can also be less efficient than a compiler can do.

 

See the example below which would run a for loop and only build array of < 0.1

 

Conditional autoindex.jpg

Status: Completed
Available in LabVIEW 2012

The Desktop Execution Trace Toolkit (DETT) can trace enqueue/dequeue operations, so I would think this is feasible:

 

Add a mechanism to like the Profile>Performance & Memory view to display all active queues in memory by name (for "unnamed" ones, use whatever unique refnum/identifier is available) as well as the max size and current # of items in queue. You could use the same "Snapshot" functionality as the Profiler tool.

 

A particular use case:

We were tracking a memory leak in a large application that resulted from an unbounded queue whose consumer was disabled. The standard DETT and Profile tools weren't showing where the excess memory consumption was coming from, since queue data does not "belong" to a single VI. Granted, you can see the individual enqueue/dequeue operations in DETT, and even highlight pairs, but that's a little cumbersome in a large application.

tst

LabVIEW should break VIs which have hidden code

Status: New
by Knight of NI on ‎11-21-2012 08:43 AM

There is something wrong with this VI, although you wouldn't know it unless you ran it (and I should warn you that it will annoy you if you run it):

 

AnnoyingVI.png

 

 

What's wrong with it is that auto grow has been disabled and there's some annoying code hidden there beyond the loop boundary. This is one of my least favorite things about LV - it allows us to hide code completely and get away with it. I don't think it should.

 

LV already has auto grow enabled by default to handle some of the cases which cause this issue, but I know that many many people don't like it when LV automatically plays with their BD layout (and rightly so) and auto grow only covers some of the cases, so I think we need something more encompassing and less obtrusive, and I would suggest breaking the VI if it has hidden code.

 

I also know that LV has warnings and VI Analyzer has tests for this, but I think this needs to be something which doesn't let you get away with it.

 

I think LV should break any VI which has any of the following:

 

  • Objects beyond the visible boundaries of structures (including wires and constants).
  • Objects behind other objects (possibly not including wires).
  • Overlapping tunnels on structures (or maybe just not allow them to overlap at all)?
  • Anything else?

Problem

When creating an installer for my built LabVIEW application, I really dislike having to choose between including the RTE installer (and having a 100+ MB installer for my application) or not including it (and requiring my users to download and install the RTE as a separate step).  Typically, I'll build two installers at the same time (with roughly duplicate build settings): a full installer w/ RTE and a light installer w/out the RTE.

 

Proposed Solution

What would be much nicer would be if my app's installer were able to download and install the RTE, if necesary.  Actually, this is common practice, these days, for users to download a small installer that then downloads larger installer files behind the scenes.

oyester

An altermative to the "Format into string" tool.

Status: New
by Member oyester on ‎03-05-2012 05:16 PM

Format into text is very useful but can become hard to edit when it has a lot of inputs. I propose, instead of one huge format string, that the programmer be allowed to put the required format next to the corresponding input. Also, the user should be allowed to enter constant strings, e.g.. \n, \t, or "Comment", and have the corresponding input field automatically grayed out.

 

FORMAT INTO TEXT IDEA

Darin.K

"Almost Equal" functions for Float comparisons

Status: New
by Trusted Enthusiast on ‎02-09-2011 01:51 PM

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.

 

AlmostEqual.png

 

 

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?.

We're witnessing more and more requests to stop LV hiding important information from us.  In One direction we want to be able to know (and some want to break code) if structures are hiding code.

 

Others want LV primitives to give visual feedback as to how they are configured, especially if that configuration can have an effect on what's being executed or how it's executed.

 

Examples include (Please please feel free to add more in the comments below)

 

Array to cluster (Cluster size hidden)

Boolean array to number (Sign mode hidden)

FXP simple Math (Rounding, saturation and output type hidden)

SubVI node setup (When right lcicking the subVI on the BD and changing it's properties - show FP when run, suspend and so on)

Sub VI settings in general (Subroutine, debugging)

 

I know there are already ideas out there for most of these (and I simply chose examples to link to here - I don't mean to leave anyone's ideas out on purpose) but I feel that instead of targetting the individual neurangic points where we have problems, I would like to acknowledge for NI R&D that the idea behind most of these problems (Some of them go much further than simply not hiding the information, and I have given most kudos for that) is that hiding information from us regarding important differences in code execution is a bad thing.  I don't mean to claim anyone's thunder.  I only decided to post this because of the apparent large number of ideas which have this basic idea at heart.  While many of those go further and want additional action taken (Most of which are good and should be implemented) I feel the underlying idea should not be ignored, even if all of the otherwise proposed changes are deemed unsuitable.

 

My idea can be boiled down to the fact that ALL execution relevant information which is directly applicable to the BD on view should be also VISIBLE on the BD.

 

As a disclaimer, I deem factors such as FIFO size and Queue size to be extraneous factors which can be externally influenced and thus does not belong under this idea.

 

Example: I have some Oscilliscope code running on FPGA and had the weirdest of problems where communications worked fine up to (but not including 524288 - 2^19) data points.  As it turns out, a single "Boolean array to number" was set to convert the sign of the input number which turned out to be completely wrong.  Don't know where that came from, maybe I copied the primitive when writing the code and forgot to set it correctly.  My point is that it took me upwards of half a day to track down this problem due to the sheer number of possible error sources I have in my code (It's really complicated stuff in total) and having NO VISUAL CLUE as to what was wrong.  Had there been SOME kind of visual clue as to the configuration of this node I would have found the problem much earlier and would be a more productive programmer.  Should I have set the properties when writing the code initially, sure but as LV projects grow in complexity these kinds of things are getting to be very burdensome.

Path Type Function returns 0 Absolute Path if the path is empty.

 

It should return 2 <Not A Path> or better yet a 3 <Empty Path> when path is empty.

 

Sure I could check to see if the control = not a path or = empty path, but it would be nce to have one function to check.

Status: In Beta
JackDunaway

Allow References to be Wired into Case Selectors to Check for Validity

Status: Declined
by Trusted Enthusiast on ‎11-14-2009 06:12 PM - last edited on ‎04-13-2011 03:03 PM by Active Participant Laura F.

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").

 

ReferencesIntoCaseSelectors.png

 

 

Status: Declined
JackDunaway

Variable Speed highlight execute

Status: New
by Trusted Enthusiast on ‎06-04-2009 05:38 PM
Title says it all. Have a slider or pull-down that increases or decreases the highlight execute rate.
Broken_Arrow

Sizable Element Gap in Arrays

Status: New
by Active Participant Broken_Arrow on ‎10-28-2010 11:42 AM

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.

 

GapSize.png

Broken_Arrow

Change CLUSTER SIZE to a Wired Input

Status: New
by Active Participant Broken_Arrow on ‎09-25-2009 11:07 AM

Cluster Size as a Wired Input:

 

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

 Cluster Size.gif

I liked the new DBL on the palette that we got last year or so - saves a step. But, it should NOT adapt to entered data by default! Why would I specifically place a DBL only to have it change?

 

1.png

Status: Completed
Implemented in LabVIEW 2013

I find myself making a lot of VIPM packages for code re-use.  As we re-use more code we increasingly want to protect the code so that we can more freely share such packages with e.g. sub-contractors/licensed users without sharing the block diagram.  (and the first person to suggest we use VI password protection gets to wear the donkey ears for the rest of the year.)

 

When you remove the block diagram from a VI, you also remove the ability for that VI to recompile which means that it can only run on the same version of LabVIEW and on the same hardware as it was compiled on/for.  This makes it a giant pita if you have code that is used (and works) equvally well on e.g. vxWORKS cRIO and "Windows".  Currently VI's consist of 4 parts (Front panel, block diagram, code and data) and without the block diagram, the code section cannot be recompiled.

 

I wonder, if it would be possible to extend this to either allow the "code" section of the file to be essentially an "array" or at the very least let there be two "code" sections?  -It would tremendously increase the usability of the "remove block diagram" feature if we didn't need to maintain a copy for each hardware platform.

 

I'm not sure how technically possible this would be, but since deployed code (at least to RT) typically gets compiled into (rt)exe's the extra and un-used code section(s) could be stripped during exe build, and the slight performance hit during development/debugging runs that might come from this along with larger VI size seems to me to be a decent trade-off.  

 

So my suggestion is to investigate this and if possible allow some extra choices during the "strip block diagram" from VI process where you get to select an extra "target platform" or two.

 

A much less savy alternative would be to modify the existing tool to automatically pre-fix and output multiple "versions" of the same code distribution, one for each selected target platform. This would at least speed up the process of maintaining and creating all the variations.

Latest LabVIEW Idea Exchange Blog Posts
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
User Kudos Count
102
48
39
35
34
Idea Statuses