LabVIEW

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Modifying more than one element from a map with the in-place element structure

Solved!
Go to solution

So I've been experimenting with maps in LabVIEW and found them quite useful for organizing data. However I have some problems with the in-place element structure when trying to modify two element from a single map.

In-place element Map error.png

Take a look at the example above. I want to modify 'Element 1' and 'Element 2'. For some reason, the second node forces a feedback node?! The vi is broken as well, giving me the error that the node on the right is missing a required input?! Which one exactly? (the action input is optional, wiring it doesn't fix it either). The terminals of the second node are also on the bottom instead of the sides. Adding a third node is the same problem as the second (forces feedback node).

 

I guess the simplest solution is the just add another map element, but I want to understand what is happening here. Maybe I'm using it wrong?

 


 

Then there is another bug that breaks a wire when undoing actions. Anytime I have the second node wired and I undo a wire for example the ket wire breaks. Rewiring solves it.

Basjong53_0-1626778900607.png

0 Kudos
Message 1 of 5
(2,349 Views)

It looks like the second item's write terminal is set to an output.  That is a bug.  I am seeing this in 2019 SP1 and 2020 SP1.



There are only two ways to tell somebody thanks: Kudos and Marked Solutions
Unofficial Forum Rules and Guidelines
"Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God" - 2 Corinthians 3:5
0 Kudos
Message 2 of 5
(2,307 Views)

It's been noticed before:

 

IPE Map Get/Replace value extended - bug or feature - NI Community

 

Not sure if there's a BUG yet.

0 Kudos
Message 3 of 5
(2,295 Views)
Solution
Accepted by topic author Basjong53

@Basjong53 wrote:

I guess the simplest solution is the just add another map element, but I want to understand what is happening here. Maybe I'm using it wrong?


If (2nd image) you have an array (Element 1 and Element 2), a for loop seems simpler (and appropriate).

 

Put the map in a shift register, use auto indexing on the array.

0 Kudos
Message 4 of 5
(2,293 Views)

wiebe@CARYA wrote:


If (2nd image) you have an array (Element 1 and Element 2), a for loop seems simpler (and appropriate).

 

Put the map in a shift register, use auto indexing on the array.


That make more sense. Thanks for the suggestion.

0 Kudos
Message 5 of 5
(2,242 Views)