LabVIEW should break VIs which have hidden code

[tst]

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):

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?

[X.]

I think my post here was censored (without even mention of any editing in the thread's OP as is usually the case).

I don't exactly remember what I wrote, but the gist of it was that the suggestion was declined (to which tst - the author) later responded by a "not cool!" (that post wasn't censored).

So not only is criticism not well taken by NI, but there is silent editing (I was actually not even warned that I had infringed on the political correctness expected from posters to this forum)...

We are progressing! Soon, LabVIEW will be declared bug-free, a single coding style will be accepted and we will all code in a piece and harmony...

[tst]

---

@X. wrote:

I don't exactly remember what I wrote...

---

I do. It wasn't that "the gist of it was that the suggestion was declined". You used the exact same style that NI uses when changing status, which is why I said it wasn't cool and some people said it was funny (I agree it was funny, but in the context of the IE it was way more not cool than it was funny). I assume someone notified the moderators. As for not notifying of removing your message (looking at the comments you're actually pointing to the wrong one. It looks like it came earlier in the thread and was deleted), they probably should have.

[X.]

Moderator, please censor the typo in my latest post. It should read "peace and harmony". No need to notify me.

[X.]

@tst: the post was not deleted. The message content was replaced by a smiley. I never use smileys. This was actually reproched to me by a later poster. QED.

Let me add that in some sense I would almost want your suggestion to be implemented. At least that would make one long thread something more than just a waste of time for all of us who contributed to it. Including with a bit of humor.

[tst]

---

@X. wrote:
...the post was not deleted. The message content was replaced by a smiley. I never use smileys

---

See Steve's post here. It's before the smiley and it references your post - http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-Idea-Exchange/LabVIEW-should-break-VIs-which-have-hidden-code/idc-p/...

Don't ask me why you would use a mad smiley. I can barely understand how you think in real time. I certainly can't figure it out years later. 😉

If I had to guess, it was probably because Steve said it needed one.

As for wasting our time, no one is forcing you to participate. If you want the idea to be implemented, you're welcome to vote for it. 😉

[MathieuSteiner]

Or at least, have an option that we could toggle on or off at will

[NIExpert]

As a follow on, I would like to be able to find all objects that are touching the boundary of an "auto grow" structure