LabVIEW Idea Exchange

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!
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Allow Dynamically Registered User Events to preserve Native Datatype in Event Structure

Status: New

The current behavior of LabVIEW is as such:

 

UserEventsWithClusters.png

 

The pick list of event data strips the cluster, only allowing access to the elements inside the cluster. In order to manipulate the native datatype, you must reconstitute the cluster inside the event structure, a performance hit on large data structures firing at quick event rates. This is not to mention a messy FP.

 

I suggest that User Events preserve the clustered event datatype, allowing the programmer to access to the native datatype on the consumer end. The option to select only the element "Clustered Typedef.Array of I32s" of course still remains, but is not forced upon you. (Note that the below block diagram is NOT a direct LabVIEW screenshot... brought to you by trickery and a paint program. I clustered the cluster on event datatype [not shown] so that the event structure could eat the outer layer)

 

NewUserEventsWithClusters.png

 

My motivation with this suggestion is directly linked with my other post on the Big Typedef Issue.

Wirebird Labs: Expert Toolkits for LabVIEWDeploy, by Wirebird Labs: Expert Toolkits for LabVIEW
13 Comments
Active Participant
The same principle could also be done for "key down" to easily distribute the event elements to another handler. E.g. for use in Xcontrols.
Regards,
André (CLA, CLED)
Active Participant
All you have to do is put your typedef in a cluster (i.e. nest your Clustered Typedef constant inside another cluster).  Then you will have exactly what you want.
Knight of NI
Yes, but then you have to modify all your other code that uses this cluster/typedef to be a cluster/cluster/elements to handle the extra layer of the cluster which is just a hack.  There is no logical reason for the event structure to strip away a layer of the cluster.  At best, it is an undesired behavior, I worst, I would consider it a bug.
Trusted Enthusiast

Matthew,

 

I'll quote myself from above: "Note that the below block diagram is NOT a direct LabVIEW screenshot... brought to you by trickery and a paint program. I clustered the cluster on event datatype [not shown] so that the event structure could eat the outer layer"

 

I'll have to agree with Ravens that this is hacky. It's a solution, yes, but I think that default behavior should NOT eat the outer cluster. Ravens described my sentiments exactly: "At best, it is an undesired behavior, at worst, I would consider it a bug."

 

Regards,

Jack

Message Edited by JackDunaway (mechelecengr) on 09-09-2009 08:13 AM
Wirebird Labs: Expert Toolkits for LabVIEWDeploy, by Wirebird Labs: Expert Toolkits for LabVIEW
Active Participant

The issue is that if this is changed to Jack's desired method, then I can't have multiple base items in the event menu.  Everything is required to be clustered together in the selection of items.

 

I use the user events in both ways Jack showed above.  Usually though, I have multiple items besides just the cluster.

 

Sometimes the data in the events doesn't necessarily need to be processed together.  I actually tend to use your first example quite often (not rebundling the data, though), and like it.  Your prosped method would mean that all user data events only result in one top layer item, and users that use the current functionailty will complain.

 

For example, if I have a simple user event that is just a single item (number, boolean).  I now have an extra layer I don't want.  People will ask why they need to navigate a cluster to get to a boolean.  The old way was so much better.

 

Unless there is a boolean option to make it selectable, NI will not make everyone happy.

Trusted Enthusiast

Matthew: Remember, even with the current implementation for FP object events, you can select components of a cluster using dot notation! My logic is undeniable, you know you want to Kudos this infallible idea.

 

If this behavior does not fully suit your need due to space constraints (understandable), create a new idea that allows "Hide Full Names" on event structures, just like cluster Unbundle/Bundle By Name. I would Kudos that idea!

 

DotNotation.png

Message Edited by JackDunaway (mechelecengr) on 10-13-2009 07:34 PM
Wirebird Labs: Expert Toolkits for LabVIEWDeploy, by Wirebird Labs: Expert Toolkits for LabVIEW
Active Participant

I questioned this very behavior some time ago, suggesting that it seemed syntactically inconsistent. I seem to recall that AQ replied with an explanation that it WAS consistent with the overall event structure approach, where an event case which handles multiple event types will return the common elements (i.e., intersection of cluster element names) for the event data.

 

That being said, I would still like to see the overall structure as an option for the event data.  Kudos (a little late).

 

Dave

David Boyd
Sr. Test Engineer
Abbott Labs
(lapsed) Certified LabVIEW Developer
Trusted Enthusiast

>> I seem to recall that AQ replied with an explanation that it WAS consistent with the overall event structure approach, where an event case which handles multiple event types will return the common elements (i.e., intersection of cluster element names) for the event data.

 

Interesting, I've never realized that advantage.

 

That means, that instead of the interface I suggested (where you drill down from the top level cluster), maybe it's better to simply add one additional Event Data Node that is the fully preserved (i.e., not fanned-out) data structure.

 

With an additional Event Data Node, if you have two different types of events handled by the same event case, you'll still get the intersection of the common data elements like you do today, but the two top-level non-fanned-out data clusters would be excluded from the intersection.

Wirebird Labs: Expert Toolkits for LabVIEWDeploy, by Wirebird Labs: Expert Toolkits for LabVIEW
Trusted Enthusiast

The "opposite" of this Idea is posted here: Expand Data Interface to Built-In Messaging Primitives

Wirebird Labs: Expert Toolkits for LabVIEWDeploy, by Wirebird Labs: Expert Toolkits for LabVIEW
Active Participant

I just ran into this problem today.  I want my cluster in one piece!!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------

Kudos and Accepted as Solution are welcome!