CLD-R

[lmtis]

I've used a custom probe to put a graph or chart onto a numeric output.

[GregFreeman]

That shirt is ugly. It's in my closet and has never been warn. It should be blue or something...not a mustard yellow.

[tbob]

---

@for(imstuck) wrote:

That shirt is ugly. It's in my closet and has never been warn. It should be blue or something...not a mustard yellow.

---

I agree.  I only wear it when everything else is dirty.

[sture]

Another strange question:

32 Which of the following methods will allow the execution of the Custom Add VI?

a. Method 1

b. Method 2

c. Both methods

d. None of the methods

 

I anwered c, both methods, but the correct according to NI is a method 1. I even tried method 2 and it works. Can anyone explain ?

[smercurio_fc]

The Static VI Reference as shown is creating a strictly typed VI reference. The Run VI method does not accept a strictly typed VI reference, so you're actually supposed to get an error from that node when you try to run the VI. Are you saying you're not?

[JÞB]

---

@for(imstuck) wrote:

That shirt is ugly. It's in my closet and has never been warn. It should be blue or something...not a mustard yellow.

---

Funny,

BurtB and I got dark blue polos- the Logo looks great on this background  someone must have heard you whine

[tbob]

I ran it here and got an error, but it was not the error you would expect.  Using LV2010.  The error message is:

 The VI is not in a state compatible with this operation. Change the execution mode of the referenced VI to reentrant for this operation.

So I changed the called vi to reentrant and saved it, and I got the same error message again.  Very strange.  I think the question is very misleading because the title in the Invoke Method box is "VI (strict)" and there are no broken wires, leading one to believe that there is nothing wrong with the code. 

I found that the CLD-R is full of misleading and tricky questions pertaining to subjects that are not widely known.  The CLD is much more easy to pass than the CLD-R, unless you are a Labview God.  I showed a sample CLD-R to a colleague who is a great Labview programmer and guru, and he was surprised at the number of questions he didn't know the answer to.  Some questions were about Labview internals, such as how strings are stored in memory.  Does one really need to know how Labview handles its internals to be able to write good code?  In my opinion, the CLD-R is designed to stump people and is in need of a major overhaul.  The original certification should be difficult.  The recertification should be fairly easy to those who passed the original CLD.

[sture]

---

The Static VI Reference as shown is creating a strictly typed VI reference. The Run VI method does not accept a strictly typed VI reference, so you're actually supposed to get an error from that node when you try to run the VI. Are you saying you're not?

---

When I tried this first time the "Custom Add VI" was reentrant and it worked. With a not reentrant sub-vi the sub-vi is not started and error code 1198 is returned. So alternatve a is correct if the called vi is not reentrant, but in the question nothing is said about reetrant/non reentrant execution.

[falkpl]

Although I passed the CLD-R I did leave it unhappy.  I found several questions to be overly tricky.  We have all already passed a practical exam, I though the point of a recertification is to show we are keeping up with any changes to labview.  I know that I wasnt alone in not enjoying this exam.

[tbob]

---

@falkpl wrote:

Although I passed the CLD-R I did leave it unhappy.  I found several questions to be overly tricky.  We have all already passed a practical exam, I though the point of a recertification is to show we are keeping up with any changes to labview.  I know that I wasnt alone in not enjoying this exam.

---

Believe me that you were not alone.  It pays to complain.  I wrote a nasty, but quite frank, letter to NI about the exam after I had failed the first and second attempts.  I got a call from one of the test developers, and he helped me with additional sample questions to study.  I complained about the trickiness and irrelevency of some questions.  Of course he defended his exam. 

However, I did complain that it was highly unfair to not know which questions you missed.  I argued that if I had known which questions I missed, I could go back and study them and gain more knowledge.  He agreed.  I participated in a pilot program in which the questions I missed were shown to me after the exam was over.  I had 30 minutes to review the questions.  Of course they don't give you the answers, and you can't write them down.  So you have to just remember them.  Then you could go back and search for the correct answer.  It went pretty well.  I was able to see which ones I missed.  I passed, but if I had failed I would have a better chance of passing upon the next re-take.  I think they will incorporate this for everyone in the near future.

Maybe if enough people would write nasty letters to NI, they might look at changing the questions.