DQMH Consortium Toolkits Feature Requests

When NI released VI Analyzer 2018, they included a feature to ignore VI Analyzer test failures for specific objects and VIs through the use of #via_ignore bookmarks:

I would like similar functionality for ignoring DQMH Validate Module failures. I propose that if a VI contains a #dqmh_validate_ignore bookmark anywhere on its diagram, then that VI will not return a failure for any DQMH Validate Module test whose name is included in that bookmark's label. Something like this:

Hi,

When creating Request And Reply / Round Trip events, the timeout to get the answer is set as a constant which is global to the module.

It would be nice to personalize this timeout to choose between :

• Module timeout
• Personnalized timeout with a control to enter a value in millisecond

If Module timeout is selected, then module timeout -- constant.vi would be wired to the 'wait for notification' timeout input.
If Personnalized is selected the value set by the user would replace the module timeout -- constant.vi (using a constant instead, or better calling a newly create 'request name' timeout -- constant.vi)

Hello,

I'm working now on communication between two DQMH apps. Sending events between then is easy thanks to HSE Generic Networking for DQMH Module. However, each request that I want to transfer requires a wrapper (documentation) and the steps to create it are the same. It would be nice if I can automate this process by customing Create New DQMH Event function. So I have tried to find any information about how to add a type of event but without success. Is it possible? Another solution will be to have an option to add Post Event Creation action (vi), which gives a possibility to run self-created scripting code. 

When developing a DQMH Module Template, the meta data XML file that goes along with the module template library defines various aspects of the module. Currently, the only user-configurable parts of the XML file are the module description, and where you want to store the template on disk.

I propose there be more items you can configure for a DQMH Module Template when creating it. My current ideas are:

1. Name of the virtual folder in the target project to place the module tester

2. Name of the virtual folder in the target project to place the module library

3. Alternate path (other than "Libraries") to store the new module library on disk relative to the target project.

For example, I have a DQMH module template for creating a test for my test framework. I want its tester to go in a 'Test Testers' virtual folder in my project, I want its library to go in a 'Test Libraries' virtual folder in my project, and I want the module to be saved in a 'Tests' folder that sits next to my project. It would be nice if all of these things could be not only specified in the UI of the Add New DQMH Module dialog, but default values for each of them could be defined in the module template meta data XML as well.

1)I don't think it's possible in DQMH 5.0 to modify arguments of one Event without removing it and re-create it. Lots scripting but very useful. Perhaps, in the convert tool menu?

2) Remove automatically all vi's and controls create during event creation if there is a problem during this process. I have encountered this problem and I have lost time before understanding why I couldn't recreate the same event.

For the singleton and cloneable module type, there is an option to include "Do Something" events in the new created module.

I'm not sure it's often used.

I'd like to remove it to simplify the UI.

So - we have a few modules now where we essentially strip out the message handling loop as the modules are essentially "UI" modules.

DQMH 5 broke them (well, broke the ability to use the scripting tools with them), DQMH 6 allows them to work but could it do one more thing for me?

I have a cloneable DQMH event only module - it creates the event case, but it DOESNT put the "addressed to this Module.vi" into the newly created case as it would with a regular DQMH...

Any chance you can rejig the scripting order to get that back in?

Thanks! 

Hi,

Some of my events have a common events arguments and/or reply payload.
Creating a template would speed up their creation.

Also, when using round trips from TestStand, I made a modification to the content of a round trip event to easily handle termination.
It could be nice if this modification could be saved as a template, so that every round trips I create to be used within a TS sequence would contain automatically that modification.

Hi DQMH Enthusiasts,

What we always do by adapting the std DQMH template is adding a logging functionality into the dequeue VI of the MHL of each module (our logger of choice is a LV wrapper around Log4Net, but it doesn't matter). In my recent project, I added this logging functionality also into every request and broadcast. That means I get a XML document that contains all messages that are sent and received. Then I wrote a parser that creates a plantuml sequence diagram out of the xml, because the sent messages had the same title as the received ones.

All I had to do to get a full blown sequence diagram of my application was to run a standard operation once and let the parser do its magic.

So my feature requests would be:

- add automated logging to each notification sent and received

- Create an add-on that takes a logging file and creates a Plantuml text from it

I am happy to help/demonstrate/explain what I did and what would be ideal. I know you guys think about logging, so this might be just a small step ahead.

Cheers, Niko

All,

The suggestion/request is mainly caputured in Implementation (1) at "https://delacor.com/dqmh-generic-networking-module/"

The proposal is to generalize the 'reply' communication by using a 'variant notifier' instead of a 'typedef notifier'.

I agree with the statement mentioned on the delacor website.

"This allows us to send and receive messages without knowing about their actual contents, and that’s the prerequisite for separating the module’s actual use code from the networking code."

The proposal is to change the DQMH scripting to always use the variant notifier. (instead of manually changing)

Actually I have changed the scripting to be able to have this automatically, which I use already 2 years. (If interest I can share with the consortium)

Personnally I don't see any disadvantages of using a variant instead of typedef in this case.

Also for writing the reply payload, this is not a problem as the typedef is also scripted automatically. (see screenshot) 

Any comments on potential disadvantages?

Regards,

Lucas

This was originally raised by Joerg here:

https://forums.ni.com/t5/Delacor-Toolkits-Documents/DQMH-Feature-Requests/tac-p/3974021/highlight/tr...

To quote Joerg:

"Sometimes, the error cluster that feeds into the Delacor QMH Error Handler - Message Handling Loop.vi doesn't convey enough information to identify the origin of the error. For example, an Error "91 - Variant To Data in xyz.lvlib:Main.vi" does not tell me in which MHL case the variant to data operation failed. It would be nice to have the selector label of the MHL's case that the error occurred in."

Feature Request: Somehow (not sure what the best way would be) make the error handler include the last message's name (string) in the error broadcast."

I sometimes create Cloneable modules that I intend on usually calling as singletons. For these modules, I often manually update each request to have its Module ID input recommended (instead of required) and the Module ID default value of 0 (instead of -1). I also make the 'call as singleton' input on Start Module.vi have a default value of TRUE (instead of FALSE).

I'd like for there to be an option when creating a new cloneable module that says something like "optimize for calling as singleton" that would create the default requests as described above, and would also be tagged in some way so when I add new requests they will be created as described above.

(idea originally posted here)

I'm triggering module validation with CI. On a large project (40+ modules), the validation takes 20+ minutes to execute.

I'm wondering if there are ways to reduce this execution time.

For the Validate DQMH Module (Headless).vi, expose an event that allows for updating the status of the validation while it's running.

Similar to the AB API:

This would allow to update the UI or CI console during execution.

I was writing a module that interfaces with hardware and created an "initialize" request event to call the driver's init. Had I been thinking I would have realized there is already an "initialize" case native to DQMH, but the tool went ahead and scripted it out. The only indication of a problem was a broken run arrow due to duplicated case names.

When you add a new Request and wait for reply event, the scripting tool adds automatically, in the Modules consumer, the handler case. In this case, there is also added the bundle for the Reply message and the Wait for reply? case structure. 

Personally, i move every time the bundle inside the Wait for reply? case structure to have a cleaner area.

The scripting tool can add this automatically for a cleaner view and maybe an optimized code. There is no need to create a bundle, if you do not use it forward.

The DQMH library has several errors defined in privately scoped VIs like "Module Not Running--error.vi".

It feels like the error codes associated with these error constants form part of the public API but there is no way that the library caller can know what these codes are without the omnipotent powers of the developer looking into the code (or deliberately triggering the error in an API call).

What would be people's thoughts on providing some public VIs which wrap up the private error constant VIs and just output the code for use with the things like the "Clear Errors.vi" or other error handling logic?

I know these could be added to a custom template but if the point of the DQMH is to encourage good practice then avoiding magic numbers in the caller's error handling logic is a win right!

Cheers

John
 

I'd like to have a way to duplicate a module easily through DQMH module menu.

Just a very, very simple proposal for consistency, as per what the title says: when a "Panel close?" event is triggered in "External Launch" mode, the module should probably broadcast a "Panel hidden." Status updated. Like this:

Do you agree or is there any reason I'm missing for which the broadcast was not placed there?

Thanks!