LV2011 bug - Error wired to boolen function breaks when saving for previous version

[dan_u]

---

@Norbert B wrote:

Saving VIs to previous versions does not change the BD itself. The requested functionality would require BD analysis and inserting (per scripting) an unbundle into the error wire. This is a complete new functionality, at least i am not aware that this is happening anywhere else....

---

It's true that saving for previous version would need to change the BD. But earlier versions of LV did that (try e.g. saving an in place element structure back to LV8.0 --> it adapts the code so the functionality stays the same).

So I would consider it a bug.

Also, saving for previous version for some elements shows a warning (e.g. the Increment which didn't have an output configuration in earlier LV versions). So both code replacement and warnings are possible, but it seems this was forgotten for this new feature.

[Norbert_B]

Ok, i stand corrected (obviously).

Nevertheless, you should kudo Steve's idea since it is a good way to improve LV. Even if it is not solved as bug (still not sure, if the term "bug" really hits the point though.....), it might get an eye and will be "corrected".

Norbert

[Norbert_B]

This is odd.....

i believe you, Steve, that you encountered this behavior. Nevertheless, my LV 2011 behaves differently:

becomes this when downconverting to LV 2010:

I was just going to file a CAR on this, but it seems that it is working as expected. Can you please verify (and all others as well)?

thanks,

Norbert

[fdinoff]

I can verify that what happened in steve's VI also happened in mine.

[dan_u]

So it makes a difference whether an OR or an AND is used?

[SteveChandler]

I cannot verify this right now. I only have LabVIEW 2010SP1 at work. I have 2011 only at home.

Edit: I only tried this with OR. Unmarking the solution until there are further details.

[Norbert_B · Accepted solution]

---

@dan_u wrote:

So it makes a difference whether an OR or an AND is used?

---

Thanks for pointing out. THIS is really a bug (inconsistent functionality with different operators)!

Filed CAR 310687 for this.

thanks,
Norbert

[Mr.Mike]

CAR 310687 is a duplicate of CAR 307993.  If you want to check the status of this CAR, make sure you ask about 307993