LabVIEW

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

[LabVIEW Bug Report] "Create All Constants" fails to create constant for controls when mixed with indicators

Solved!
Go to solution

I was once a beta tester and was vilified by some NI engineers for ironically pointing out some old bugs or LV incongruities (such as this one). I took it as an invitation to never show up again.

0 Kudos
Message 11 of 23
(764 Views)

It was not in the LV 6.1 era was it?

 

LV was rather solid back then.

 

I can not tell you about the fights I have had behind the scenes but I think I can relate since I "get alergic" when the trip to NI Week comes up and I find a reason not to go.

 

Take care and keep up the fight sir!

 

Ben

Message 12 of 23
(757 Views)

@Ben wrote:

It was not in the LV 6.1 era was it?

 

LV was rather solid back then.

 

I can not tell you about the fights I have had behind the scenes but I think I can relate since I "get alergic" when the trip to NI Week comes up and I find a reason not to go.

 

Take care and keep up the fight sir!

 

Ben


I believe it was for LV 2012. I uncovered a major booboo at the time as a matter of fact (the erratic conpane behavior) which took me many posts to convince anyone that it actually existed... But as I said, when I mentioned that some of the dialog windows were dating back from LV 3 or 5, I was told that this kind of comments were disrepectful to the developers and that I should not expect my opinion to be taken in much regard from then on.

Just watch TV to see what happens when a community hush-hushes reality...

Message 13 of 23
(728 Views)

I think it's working as expected; I often use the quick drop version of this for SubVIs.

 

Select SubVI » Ctr + Space » Ctr + Shift + 😧

  • Constants are created for all the inputs to the SubVI

It would be inconvenient to create these constants for an output, why would you need a constant for that?

 

EDIT: What would you call it instead of "Create All Constants"?

Craig H. | CLA CTA CLED | Applications Engineer | National Instruments
0 Kudos
Message 14 of 23
(714 Views)

@Craig_ wrote:

 

 

EDIT: What would you call it instead of "Create All Constants"?


"Create All Indicator Constants"?

0 Kudos
Message 15 of 23
(707 Views)

@X. wrote:

@Craig_ wrote:

 

 

EDIT: What would you call it instead of "Create All Constants"?


"Create All Indicator Constants"?


I think that makes sense, but if I was reading that in a menu (besides being a long string) I'd be first confused as to exactly what they meant by that.  I think controls, indicators, constants,  and something that said "indicator constant", wouldn't clue me in right away as to what that meant.

0 Kudos
Message 16 of 23
(701 Views)

What about "Create All Input Constants"? I read "Create All Indicator Constants" as if you were creating constants only for the outputs of a function.

Matt J | National Instruments | CLA

GCentral
0 Kudos
Message 17 of 23
(698 Views)

@Jacobson wrote:

What about "Create All Input Constants"? I read "Create All Indicator Constants" as if you were creating constants only for the outputs of a function.


That would be fine with me.

It still remains that you can create a constant from a single control terminal, therefore there is an asymmetry between indicators and controls which is illogical.

0 Kudos
Message 18 of 23
(693 Views)

Matt J,

 

Create All Input Constants sounds reasonable to me. 

 

And I agree with X that the inconsistencies between creating a constant from one conpane terminal versus create all should be cleared up.

 

Lynn

0 Kudos
Message 19 of 23
(682 Views)

@X. wrote:

Creating a cluster constant for one.

 

I am just pointing at the fact that this shortcut menu does not do what it says it does (Create ALL constants).

You don't want to learn exception to rules, but instead assume that a function does what it literally says it will do.


I wouldn't mind some of the renaming mentioned in this thread.  But, it's a bit strange to use an exception to the rule as the use case to show this is confusing as an exception to the rule.  With clusters being only controls or indicators rather than a mix, it's a bit of an exception of the rule to need to create a cluster for the mixture of the two.

 

Looking through this thread, it's taken several posts to get through the point you'd want to see this renamed rather than the functionality changed.  I know nothing of the past conversations you had in beta.  But, if you reported bugs there the same way you did here, I wouldn't be surprised if you received a bit of hostility.  In this case, it'd be borderline crazy to change the behavior to do what you pointed out it doesn't do.  As a result, I'd expect you to get quite a bit of pushback.  If you reported it instead showing that it doesn't really create "all" constants and suggest it's a documentation problem where the name could be clearer, you'd likely receive a better response, as evidenced by the conversation after that became more clear.

 

There are ways to report things that lead to meaningful conversations and ways to do so that lead to bickering. 

 

There's also context.  You cite younger LV users as the reason this should be changed.  Do you know many young LV users that are creating cluster constants?  Most are mystified by constants of any kind.  (I'm not saying there are none that do.  But, we're looking at the exception to the rule, yet again). 

0 Kudos
Message 20 of 23
(659 Views)