Right now through SystemLink when you go to the server to approve a new system, you get a listing with the Minion IDs of all the systems waiting for approval. The problem is that the minion ID is made up of the computer type, serial number and MAC address. As a production line manager person, I don't know the hardware serial numbers of computers, or MAC addresses of systems. Yes they are great unique identifiers, but it's kinda like having a conversation about people by only using their social security numbers (instead of calling them by Jane, John, Marry or Harry).
What it comes down to is I've got a list of systems that I don't know what they are, and to be able to make a reasonable decision about the security of my process I need to do a large amount of research to decide whether it is an appropriate system. I wish the list included the system HostName too. With that I could decide quicker and easier if it was a valid system to approve.
With the NI Package Manager we can now create packages for a variety of purposes (libraries, tools, APIs, stand-alone applications, plugins...).
However, there's currently a limitation with the dependencies. For example, if you want to create a .nipkg file that relies on the LabVIEW Runtime Engine that successfully deploys to any PC, you have 2 choices:
- manually install the LV RTE from NIPM on the deployment machine
- add the LV RTE (and your app) to a custom feed, and manually add that feed to NIPM on the deployment machine.
In any case, there's a manual operation for a user. This is because NIPM does not automatically search for NI feeds when installing a custom package (it only looks into already installed feeds).
There should be (at least) an option like this in NIPM (ideally it should be the default behavior)!
This way, NIPM would behave pretty much like any other package manager (think Linux or mobile platforms)...
To be specific, I am talking about the link below from the 3.x NI License Manager (this is on a VM I use for LV 8.5 development)
It had the nice feature of filling in your computer's information and all the products you are activating as part of the link. Unfortunately, NI's website no longer supports this pre-filling - using this link in 3.x now just redirects you to the normal result of typing in ni.com/activate into your browser.
My typical workflow with this screen would be to enter my real serial number into the preceding dialog, use this dialog to get the activation link, go back to the preceding dialog and enter in a fake serial number, press next twice to get the activation codes entry dialog, and copy the activation codes into the dialog.
In NI License Manager 4.x, you either need to use web activation (which saves your serial number everywhere) or enter codes manually, requiring a trip to http://ni.com/activate for every product that needs activation (and trying to figure out how the name of an application in License Manager - say "Vision Development Module Runtime" - matches against the website's entries - say "Vision Development Module", "Vision Development Module (FRC)", "Vision Development Module Runtime (FRC)", and "Vision Runtime") and a bunch of e-mail spam if you choose to get a copy of the activation e-mailed to you. Note that activating LabVIEW alone requires two of these trips (or at least used to), as the Professional Development system and the Application Builder activate separately.
As far as why I often don't want to use the built-in Web Activation, it stores your serial number on the computer. This leads most (I think LabVIEW 2017 is an exception) versions of LabVIEW to display your serial number in their splash screens and about boxes - this could be visible in a public setting or at a customer site. It also stores the serial number even after you deactivate it, so if you temporarily activate a tester while you are doing its initial debug, your serial number will be stored for your customer to reactivate (and possibly distribute).
I labelled this as MAX, as there is no License Manager Idea Exchange - in a way this applies to all NI products.
First time poster here so please excuse my ignorance if I am posting incorrectly.
I know NI supports CentOS and SUSE GNU/Linux distributions, but Debian distros are the most popular according to distrowatch. I would like NI to consider creating 488.2 driver support for Debian based distros. Specifically Linux Mint and Ubuntu. I have been using Ubuntu 14.04 LTS and recently switched to Linux Mint 18.3. Mint 18.3 works so well, I abandoned Windows 7 on my personal computer and only use Windows 7 at work (because I must). I can use NI USB devices on Mint (and Ubuntu) by installing the driver in a Windows 7 virtual machine and passing through the USB in VirtualBox. However this does not work for PCI cards. Drivers are a big roadblock to migrating our test equipment off Windows so I am hoping NI considers better GNU/Linux development in the future. Thank you.
The VeriStand System Definition API allows you to edit a definition file. While it is mostly used as an offline API, it is also often used in custom devices code, notably thanks to the Item Reference to Pointer function that gives your access to the SystemStorage namespace, an internal representation of the SystemDefinitionAPI.
Unfortunately, there's a hiccup with that. If you want to edit existing nodes in your system definition, it works. If you want to add/remove nodes or sections (say, automatically add an alarm when you add a given custom device channel), the underlying API calls will work but you can't see the modifications in the System Definition tree: my alarm won't show up in the tree although it exists in memory. You'll have to manually save and reopen the *.nivssdf file for that. This can't be a decent workaround for end users.
Would NI R&D be nice enough to provide us with a public function that refreshes the tree (or parts of it if we feed the node reference)?
Nb: I currently have a working solution, in case anyone urgently needs this feature.
It would be extremely usefull and would save lots of frustration if the Veristand Sequence Editor (and all of verstiand for that matter) had undo and redo functions. It is surprizing that software of this caliber does not have such a basic function. I posted this in the main veristand forum and wanted to also make sure it made it into the Idea Exchange.
When using VeriStand with Source Control SW paths for Real-Time Sequences in the Stimulus Profile Editor need to be customized on every check out because it’s not possible to use a relative path for a Real-Time Sequence in a Stimulus Profile Editor.
Even if the Real-Time Sequence is in the same folder like a Stimulus Profile itself it isn’t found and the path has to be be adjusted.
So it would be awesome if it would be possible in VeriStand 2017 to use relative paths for a Real-Time Sequences in a Stimulus Profile Editor.
The current Device Driver Installer dialog is not obvious to use. First of all you have to figure out which drivers that you need for your products and then you would probably prefer to remove other unnecessary drivers. However, this is a tedious process with a lot of dependencies.
I have seen many people just installing everything (with its drawbacks) to be safe, eventhough they only needed the NI RIO driver.
I'd like to see a more user friendly dialog where drivers are automatically selected.
My suggestion is that the user instead filters out the drivers on a product level like this:
Let say you choose Modular Instruments. Then next page could let you filter on what type of instrument you have; Scopes, FlexRIO, DMMs, RF, Switching etc...
One of the buttons in the bottom would be something like "Add more products?" so you could iterate this process and finally all needed drivers would be filtered out.
Many folks have huge trouble with building extra packages for the cRIOs (that are either missing or outdated), not to mention reproducible deployment and configuration management.
In industrial environments, we need a very high degree of customizability and reproducability, which the current nilrt distro just cannot provide. Setting up such an environment from scratch is a huge work for users, which usually aren't Linux embedded expert.
Therefore I'd suggest an fully automatized deployment of development environments, which are also easily customizable for the user. Major keypoints are:
a) development environment setup:
* container-based solution that can put together an environment automatically, using well-proven standard technology (eg. docker, ansible, ...)
* executable documentation: use declarative approaches, that are easy to understand and allow automatic documentation (eg. for verification / validation)
* use a recent, well-maintained standard distro (inside the container), and use off-the-shelf standard tools where possible
* fully tracable source control via git
* easily customizable: the user can fork off his own configuration from the appropriate upstream release, customize to his needs and later rebase to newer upstream releases if wanted
* automatic setup of package mirrors, binary repositories, product specific local deployment and HIL environments, etc.
b) target build environment:
* highly reproducable - even after very long time (eg. also allows automatic source code mirrors, etc)
* executable documentation - the configuration can be easily understood and used for generating documentation
* based on a Linux embedded experts community
* supports building for several (including customer-specific) target platforms
* supports easy configuration / customization of installed packages, as well as features selection and tuning of individual packages
* supports easily adding own software
* supports maintaining customized system configuration with image building
* fully tracable source control via git
--> the natural choice is using PTXDist (fast, reliable, reproducable, excellent expert community)
I'd estimate about 6 man-month (for a lone developer) for the initial stable release of the core system, plus another 6 mm for additional tasks like user documentation, examples, target specific configurations, etc.
Costs: about 200k $ (including extra buffer)
Equals sales price of about 25..30 avg. cRIO units. (RIO break even likely at about 50 units).
Write clean IIO drivers for the NI DAQ cards and bringt them to mainline.
* full Linux-support via standard APIs out of the box (without extra sw installations)
* very high quality by community driven maintenance
* directly supporting for standard applications by standard APIs, w/o any hw-specific modifications
* easy integration in / customization for complex scenarios
* increased sales volume by opening a completely new market (Linux/FOSS world)
* avg. 4..8 man-weeks per device type
* usually less than 1kLOC per device
For example, the - currently completely unsupported NI-600x - can be easily integrated into IIO as well as GPIO and PWM subsystems (driver can provide several interfaces in parallel, so users can pick the appropriate one for their applications).
NI could open up a new market - the Linux/FOSS world - which is currently completely unavailable to them right no, due to lack of usable drivers.
Currently when trying to see errors we need to enlarge the window, scroll through the items, and then take a screenshot of the dialog. This was encountered when trying to share my errors with support. We should make this easier through the proposed ability.
The current situation w/ homebrewn installers is really ugly - see tons of forum posts.
We have decent package management technologies like APT, which industry-grade proven for over two decades, that handles all the usual aspects of software deployment - downloads, installations, dependency management, fully automatic upgrades, inventory, clean removal, etc, etc. This also includes post-installation steps like database updates, automatically building OOT kernel modules, etc. Such technology has also been ported to esoteric and very operator-unfriendly platforms like Windows.
The key point here is the Distribution: software has to be compiled and packaged for a particular distribution and target architecture, so everything (including ABIs) really fit together and the software is neatly integrated into the ecosystem.
There are two major package manager stacks: dpkg/apt and rpm/yum, each used for dozens of different distros/platforms. Once the build process is set up (est. just several man-days initially), dozens of distros can be easily supported w/ neglectable effort. With an CI, the whole build/packaging/deployment process can easily run completely automatically.
Once packages are available that way, operators just have to add the vendor's package repository once to their system and then everything - including updates - can run automatically. Operators also can easily mirror repos, eg. for offline deployment, additional QA+approval, etc.
Since 20+ years there is no need for homebrewn installers whatsoever. They're just an extreme waste of resources - on both vendor and user side.
Properly packaging directly to certain distros and using only the native package managers for deployment would make the tons of operating/deployment problems (as seen here in the forum) go away - they're basically but problems w/ the distro-incompatible homebewn installers.
This is a bit of a feature request for the service request manager and/or as a stand-alone (my NI web) tool!
It is needed because the NI webpage makes it terribly hard to search for CAR#'s and a CAR# is only listed when solved, and only listed for the one version where it was resolved, making it nigh-on impossible to check lists of (new) CAR#s and get notified when they are resolved.
For example, I know this CAR exists, but I'm not sure if it has been resolved and the NI search just didn't find it, or if does not exist (user input error for example) or anything..
The tool should reside on "my NI" but it should be possible to export/share the list of monitored CAR's (so colleageus/companies can maintain one master list of company relevant CAR's).
The tool should connect/check against NI (ideally directly to a back-end database) and return any "public" information related to a CAR, such as "in progress", "known work-around", "details" etc. along with driver/software version where it was resolved (if any).
The tool should present a clear list (ideally with green checkmarks / red cross icons) showing the status of each CAR and maybe a synopsis/one-liner from the description to indicate what problem the number is for.
wish-list added feature: allow (on a per user basis) the user to add personal notes to a CAR (e.g. this affects projects x, y and z, once resolved, refactor those projects to remove performance intensive work-arounds!) or similar.
e-mail notification (optional/configurable) when the status changes on any of the tracked CAR's.
As far as how it relates to the service request manager, I would prefer a separate tool but that it also can link to the service request manager as outlined below:
A small but significant number of tickets either relate to, or create one or more CAR#'s (or at least mine seem to create a large amount of CAR's).
When a support tech adds / associates a ticket# with a CAR#, ideally this CAR# would be automatically added to the user's CAR Tracking list..
In addition it would be great if the back-end database tracked CAR#'s and offered up a list of these numbers in the webpage overview, for example next to the "status" column. Taking it a step further, it would be very nice if NI could make it simpler to check if a CAR has been resolved and if so, what version of LabVIEW it was resolved in/with. This information could be displayed in the same web page table, or a new page to itself. The "Status" column could then also be expanded with a green check-mark if (all) associated CAR#'s have been resolved..
Tracking CAR's and manually trying to search and check them off lists locally is labor intensive, especially since the web-page "search" does not do even a passable job when you enter CAR numbers.
Mapping in VeriStand 2011 consists of only text, but user could grasp the whole mapping if the number of connections is increasing. So, visualized mapping tool like dSPACE ConfigurationDesk as below image must be good user interface for users.
I/O Trace is extremely useful when debugging system-level text-based applications. Error handling for systems involving multiple drivers + software packages (RF toolkits, for example) is very difficult. After recognizing there was an error, we still have to determine which device threw the error and then query the appropriate driver/toolkit with the correct handle to determine what the error was. NI I/O Trace is a great way to quickly determine which device threw an error and at which function call. Unfortunately, the error reporting returned by I/OTrace is pretty limited. For example, consider the I/O Trace shown below of an application synchronizing two waveform generators. A property is not configured correctly for one of the generators. I/O Trace clearly indicates there is an error, however the exact cause of the error is difficult to discern from the message:
The actual error message is: “The Sample Rate property can not be configured if OSP Enabled is VI_TRUE. “. It would be great if I/O trace could provide the entire error description. Compare this to the LabVIEW error handler: