LabVIEW Idea Exchange

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
0 Kudos
jasn009

Command line arguments when debugging

Status: Declined

Any idea that has not received any kudos within a year after posting will be automatically declined. 

Labview should have a project setting option to enter command line arguments to simulate what a user could type in at the command line as if they were running the project as an .exe, even though I am debugging from within Labview.

 

Ultimately, I want to create my project as an executable file. My project would read in the command line parameters as typed in by the user at the command line. Labview already has a property node that reads these parameters. However, that only works when running the project as an executable. I want to debug my project from within Labview.

 

This would be similar to what VisualStudio has - a project property setting in the project properties. Labview has a project property setting for "Pass command line arguments to application" in the build specifications, but no way to initialize these parameters for debugging purposes.

 

8 Comments
jasn009
Member

When running the project as an executable, the project would read in the parameters as typed in by the user at the command line. However, when running the project from Labview, the property node would read from the project settings.

AristosQueue
Proven Zealot

It's a reasonable request, but such a rare use case that I doubt we get around to it any time soon. Very few of our customers work on those kinds of tools.

 

Luckily, the workaround is straightforward. Make your EXE top-level VI just a simple wrapper that gets the command line values and passes the values into a subVI. Then create a test harness VI that calls the same subVI but passes the parameters that you want. That's the VI you use during development.

Mr._Jim
Active Participant

Hmm.. Thanks for the interesting idea with the wrapper!  I'll implement that next time I run into that use case.  Certainly beats the build -> debug iterative approach.

tst
Knight of NI Knight of NI
Knight of NI

You can also place the property node in a conditional disable structure with the RTE condition and do whatever you want in the false case. You could possibly also pass the params to LabVIEW.exe, but that would probably require exiting LV first, so I would say it's not worth it.

 

I agree with AQ that it's probably very rare. I think the last time I actually used this feature in an actual program was 8 years ago.


___________________
Try to take over the world!
jasn009
Member

With this "LabVIEW Idea Exchange", it seems every time someone posts a suggestion, the idea gets shot down, either by NI or other users. Have ANY ideas posted by users been implemented by NI? There a lot of good ideas, but all I hear is excuses why it can't or shouldn't be done. If you don't need the idea, don't respond. It defeats the pruopses of this forum, doesn't it? Positive attitude, people - positive attitude.

AristosQueue
Proven Zealot

Jasn009: Yes, many ideas have been implemented.

 

Completed:

http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-Idea-Exchange/idb-p/labviewideas/status-key/completed

 

And there are new ones coming in LV 2015:

http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-Idea-Exchange/idb-p/labviewideas/status-key/inbeta

 

> Positive attitude, people - positive attitude.

 

There's a difference between positive attitudes and pruning bad/flawed ideas. There have been several flawed ideas that, because of pushback, have been polished into new ideas that were viable.

 

And, in this case, I'm being very blunt: I doubt this idea will ever be done no matter how good an idea it might be because there just isn't enough demand for it, and every idea we do implement takes away from something else we could be doing. The LV R&D team is smaller than most people guess.

 

> If you don't need the idea, don't respond. 

 

Actually, we (NI) need to hear from the naysayers just as much as the promoters. Sometimes that is so that we can consider ways to add the feature to the product without promoting it too much in the interface. Sometimes it is so that we can hear what we need to be careful not to break when adding something new -- many changes for "just do this for me automatically" trigger a response from another group of users for "please do not even consider doing this for me automatically." Sometimes we ignore those folks and automate anyway, some times we balance the two, and sometimes the no votes mean we don't do the feature at all. To make the best possible call, we need to hear the positive and the negative.

tst
Knight of NI Knight of NI
Knight of NI

No, I wouldn't say it defeats the purposes of the forum. I see the IE as having several uses:

 

  1. Let LV R&D see user requests in a way that isn't a black hole (which is what existed before).
  2. Let R&D see what multiple users think of idea X.
  3. Let users see what others have offered so that they waste their time.
  4. Inform people of the likelihood of idea X happening and of what they can do until it's implemented (or if it never will be). Usually, if people want X in a future version, it's because of a need they have now and having other ways of doing X can be useful.

I assure you that those who participate regularly (and AQ and I fit the bill) have a positive attitude. We wouldn't be wasting our time here just telling people "No. Nope. Nah. Move on", etc. But we do try to evaluate ideas realisticly as AQ explained. I don't think the IE is perfect. It has numerous flaws, such as not enough participation from users, not enough participation from R&D (AQ is pretty much the only example of someone who interacts with users on a regular basis, and I understand why others don't do it much. His involvement is really appreciated, even in cases where I don't agree with him) and not enough ideas being implemented. The disposition of the users is not one of those problems (and this also applies in cases where I disagreed with many people and didn't get votes for my ideas. The other users were perfectly OK in having their opinion and voicing it).

 

That's not to say that there are no cases where people are being unreasonable, but that's just people. Factor it in. This thread is a prime example of this not being the case. You got some workarounds and honest comments. I would not have taken the time to say that this is rarely used if I didn't have something else of value to add, but since I did, I added the comment about the rarity. You might say "you're not represenetative", but I'm fairly sure in this case I am and this is a rarely used feature. Not "never used", but popularity does factor into making resource allocation decisions.


___________________
Try to take over the world!
Darren
Proven Zealot
Status changed to: Declined

Any idea that has not received any kudos within a year after posting will be automatically declined. 

DNatt, NI