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: 
0 Kudos
PalanivelThiruvenkadam

Read Spread sheet string in Latest Version2015 has updated with New VI

Status: Declined

Declined for the reasons listed by AQ: "We deliberately did not automate the substitution because of the change in runtime behavior between the old and the new. The conpane change was a secondary concern. We try to make sure that on upgrade your VIs continue to function as they did before unless there's a bug we are fixing. We are not always successful in that attempt, but we do try, and in this case, we succeeded by NOT automating the replacement. If your code is working with the old VIs, we did not want to break something by replacing them."

Hi All

Not sure i am the one who is providing this suggestion

 

Hope everyone is aware that Read Write Spread Sheet string has been updated with different names, i hope that it serves the purpose of earlier Functions too.

When we are trying to open a code 2015 which is developed in earlier versions Read and write spread shett string shows Red cross mark.

 

Though it works without any issues it will be good if it automatically gets updated with New VI's. if its left as it is just not to create a conversion from 2015 to 2014 the same technique can be followed.

 

 

 

.Spread Sheet String.PNG

Palanivel Thiruvenkadam,
CLA|| CTD
7 Comments
RavensFan
Knight of NI

I don't think this idea will go anywhere.

 

There is a reason that NI created a new VI name and icon for the new and improved version, but left the old version in LabVIEW for now with the red X.  Usually it is because there may be some subtle changes in the VI that make break old VI's if the migration process that NI uses to update VI file versions just swapped them out without warning the programmer and giving them a chance to investigate and adjust.  You don't see it very often, but there are some other VI's that exist that relate back to functionality that changed after LV 4.0,  or others after LV 7.0.

 

Rather than breaking old code by just automatically swapping out an old VI for the new and possibly breaking your VI, NI makes an update that shows you are using a "deprecated" VI.  Still functional, but on the path to osolescence.

 

They put a lot of thought into how to handle these migrations and only do it this way when they have a very good reason.  It is better to have the programmer make a conscious decision and take action to update their VI rather than NI doing automatically and potentially unknowingly break your program.

X.
Trusted Enthusiast
Trusted Enthusiast

Moreover, as reported elsewhere, the "replacement" of the old by the new VIs results in an insidiously erroneous wiring (that is, unnoticeable until you get bitten by the problem).

RavensFan
Knight of NI

Thanks X.

 

That might very well be the reason.  Perhaps if that connector change didnt' happen, the new could have replaced the old automatically without problem.  (I'm not sure if there are any other changes that could have been an issue.)  So a manual replacement is a problem that has to be fixed like in the link X posted.  But an automatic replacement becomes an even bigger problem and needs to be prevented against.

PalanivelThiruvenkadam
Active Participant
Thanks for the update.I thought like as both does the same function there won't be a issue even if it's updated automatically.I failed to forsee the problems that will cause if it's done
Palanivel Thiruvenkadam,
CLA|| CTD
X.
Trusted Enthusiast
Trusted Enthusiast

I think NI overlooked the problem themselves (hence the CAR).

AristosQueue
Proven Zealot

We deliberately did not automate the substitution because of the change in runtime behavior between the old and the new. The conpane change was a secondary concern. We try to make sure that on upgrade your VIs continue to function as they did before unless there's a bug we are fixing. We are not always successful in that attempt, but we do try, and in this case, we succeeded by NOT automating the replacement. If your code is working with the old VIs, we did not want to break something by replacing them.

Darren
Proven Zealot
Status changed to: Declined

Declined for the reasons listed by AQ: "We deliberately did not automate the substitution because of the change in runtime behavior between the old and the new. The conpane change was a secondary concern. We try to make sure that on upgrade your VIs continue to function as they did before unless there's a bug we are fixing. We are not always successful in that attempt, but we do try, and in this case, we succeeded by NOT automating the replacement. If your code is working with the old VIs, we did not want to break something by replacing them."

DNatt, NI