LabVIEW Idea Exchange

The current implementation of flattening and unflattening from XML is quite noisy and includes information unnecessary for the users. Rewriting it or including Pretty Print functionality to LabVIEW would greatly simplify loading settings, exchange of data with other languages, dynamic configurations, visualizations of complex systems, network communication etc.

For community solution and examples of these features please go to -> https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-APIs-Discussions/Tree-Map/td-p/3972244

This could include also Pretty JSON since XML and JSON are interchangeable -> http://www.utilities-online.info/xmltojson/#.Xc6XjVdKiUk

Additionally the XML parsing should be implemented without requiring Windows .NET platform components, so it can be done on a real-time system. Current XML parsing functions cannot be called on RT.

Protocol buffers are a flexible, efficient, automated mechanism for serializing structured data. Like XML or JSON but smaller, faster, and simpler.

LabVIEW already has XML & JSON functions, why not ProtoBuf?  It is the default mechanism for serializing structured data used by gRPC.

If LabVIEW users want to create gRPC microservices, then LabVIEW needs to support ProtoBufs.

By default, VI Server uses TCP to communicate between applications.  This stream of data is not encrypted and open to hacking and snooping.  

My suggestion is allow VI Server traffic to be encrypted, perhaps using SSL/TLS  or an AES algorithm.

The reasons are obvious.  There is an increasing number of cyber attacks in industrial control systems.  Many cyber attacks are perpetrated internally, so a firewall or air gap is only so helpful.  And in certain environments (ie military, medical) you can't even consider transmitting data without encryption.  This means VI Server is not an option for many users.

I see that LV2020 now supports SSL/TLS in its TCP functions (see here), so the logical next step would be to make use of this in VI Server also.

There are a plethora of timestamp formats used by various operating systems and applications. The 1588 internet time protocol itself lists several. Windows is different from various flavors of Linux, and Excel is very different from about all of them. Then there are the details of daylight savings time, leap years, etc. LabVIEW contains all the tools to convert from one of these formats to another, but getting it right can be difficult. I propose a simple primitive to do this conversion. It would need to be polymorphic to handle the different data types that timestamps can take. This should only handle numeric data types, such as the numeric Excel timestamp (a double) or a Linux timestamp (an integer). Text-based timestamps are already handled fairly well. Inputs would be timestamp, input format type, output format type, and error. Outputs would be resultant format and error.

Having sold applications that use functionality from the OPC UA Toolkit we run into an issue if we upgrade our LabVIEW version and continue to develop those applications beceause the OPC UA deployment license will then stop working if we upgrade the software we have delivered to them to one developed in a newer version. So, even though the customer has an OPC UA deployment license and we have an updated developer license it is not enough because the deployment licenses have to be updated as well (and it does not help that deployment licenses are not something we can bunde with the upgrade of the software either). From what I understand new deployment licenses will not actually cost anything, they are provided by NI as long as you already had a deplyment license for the previous version - but the logistics of this is a nightmare for us. Instead of just delivering a new installer with an updated version of our software we have to get involved in upgrading the dpeloyment license for all of their systems each time we have gone to a new version of LabVIEW.

Several users of XNET miss an important function from the driver: to read signals' logical value from the database.

For example, the value of 1 means 'Initialized', 0 means 'not initialized'. We would like to read those strings.

See this thread.

The Run Method is pretty much the only option we have in LabVIEW to scale an application dynamically by instantiating new VIs - but there is one big catch - for some reason it requires the unser interface to be idle(!).

Related methods like setting control values e.g. do not have this requirement so they do not pose a problem - but the main method for dynamic instantiation does - and can be blocked by something as simple as a user that opens the calendar view of a date and time control (which of course never should do this either, but that's another issue/idea).

Personally I use the run method to create new trend windows (you never know how many trends a user wants to see at the same time), create session handlers for remote clients etc. The times it is used to actually create user interfaces it is not a big problem that the run method is in the user interface thread, but for session handlers and other things that needs to be created in the background based on requests from the outside? A HUGE issue.

To support modern web thin clients, the LabVIEW webservice needs to support the OPTIONS request. When a web browser makes a cross origin request there are a few rules that the response must comply with before the browser will provide with the result to the web application. The OPTIONS request is needed to respond to these requests.

A cross origin request is any request where an application running on one domain needs to make a request to another domain. For example, if there was a javascript application running on the domain www.labview.com and it needed to make a AJAX request to api.labview.com, the browser considers this a cross origin request. This is a common setup when the thin client is being hosted by one server, and the webservice is being hosted by another server. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CORS

Depending on the request, the browser may issue a "preflight" request. "Standard" requests are GET and POST requests without custom header fields only require the response has an additional headers. Other requests (PUT, DELETE, GET w/ headers, POST w/ headers) require a preflight request. A preflight request is an OPTIONS request. If the OPTIONS request doesn't get an appropriate response, the browser will not even make the actual request. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Preflight_request

For example, I'm starting an application and here's how I'd like it setup.

1. Windows PC. This is the central server for the application. There will be a normal LabVIEW application running on this computer. There will also be a web service run on this computer. The web service will mainly host a web application written using HTML/CSS/Javascript (although it could be written using HTML vis from NXG).

2. A bunch of CRIOs. These CRIOs will also host their own web service to get system information, measurements, and diagnostics. As new CRIOs are commissioned, they'll report to the Windows PC.

Now a user uses their web browser to access to the windows PC. The Javascript Application (which is hosted on the Windows web service) provides the user with a list of all commissioned CRIOs. They then click on one and the javascript application starts to make requests directly to the CRIO's web service. Since these CRIO's are on a separate IP address, the browser flags this as a CORS request. This means that an OPTIONS request can be sent. Since I can't handle an OPTIONS request in a LabVIEW web service, I can't implement this.

This is just one example. Another case would be an Apache hosted web application hosted on an Amazon EC2 needs to make requests to a LabVIEW web service running in a different domain. Basically any time a web application (AKA something running in the browser) needs to communicate with a LabVIEW web service you'll run into this problem.