LabVIEW

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Remove the stacked sequence structure from LabVIEW.

You might also consider the Read/Write Anything VIs from http://mooregoodideas.com/. They perform much faster than the OpenG implementation.  It is part of the MGI Library that you can install using VIPM.   Here is another link to the MGI Library.

Message 51 of 195
(1,427 Views)

Third party addons Smiley Frustrated 

 

I've tried, but VPIM is hanging for some reason

 

And what happens if you change the type definition of a cluster?  Does the parsing break for the old config files?   This is the problem I had with GXML

0 Kudos
Message 52 of 195
(1,415 Views)

Thanks for the tips on OpenG and MGI methods, I happened to download both and many more packages with my recent 2013 FDS installation. I just have not had time to go through all the pallets and functions, at work and home, sigh....

 

 

-AK2DM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It’s the questions that drive us.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 Kudos
Message 53 of 195
(1,411 Views)

@PatrickR wrote:

Third party addons Smiley Frustrated 

 



Reinventing the wheel is definitely the wrong way.   Get your VIPM up and running and start using the packages.

Message 54 of 195
(1,406 Views)

PatrickR wrote:

And what happens if you change the type definition of a cluster?  Does the parsing break for the old config files?   This is the problem I had with GXML


Adding or removing elements from a cluster is supported.    Renaming an element is not supported - that goes without saying  Smiley Wink

0 Kudos
Message 55 of 195
(1,398 Views)

Hello,

 

I am writting this post to give some ideas to those who feel like the SSS is the best solution for initialisation.

I am not saying the way I am doing it is the best way but I fell like it is so much better better than SSS:

 

PrtScr capture.png

PrtScr capture_4.png

PrtScr capture_7.png

 

There is here 3 exemples of utilisation of SSS given earlier that can be solved with that kind of achitecture:

 

1: The SSS used for intialisation with (0: intitialisation; 1: Code) is here replaced by the génération of an event on an invisible indicator called "INIT".

It looks good and you can reinitialise anytime by générating the event again.

 

2: "I have too many controls / indicators to update on my front panel" >> You can use a for loop with a case structure and an array of case.

It is much more understandable, you can use shift register instead of SL, each portion of code is auto-documented, you can remove a part of the intialisation by just removing the element in the array.

 

3: "I have not enough connector to wire all my references to my subVi" >> You use an array of reference and a VLG and you dont need any connectors (actually you need 2: "error in" and "error out")

 

I hope it helps some people to get rid of SSS,

 

Baptiste

 

PS: I am sorry if my english is not always correct

PS2: I know ouadji, those 2 TypeDef have a standard icon and I do feel bad about it ^^

0 Kudos
Message 56 of 195
(1,346 Views)

The removal of the stacked sequence from the palette is something I do not understand.  Those that wish to use it can and those who do not wish to use it can just leave it alone.  It is a useful space-saving format - the only reason why one might not like it is that they might lose sight of what is in the lower layers. In my opinion such individuals need to improve their documentation techniques rather than winge about aspects of the LV environment that can be left alone, and which have no bearing on their productivity - such that it is.  NI should put it back rather than pander to those with some serious cognative issues.

0 Kudos
Message 57 of 195
(1,227 Views)

Hi Stel,

 

when you THINK DATAFLOW you also understand that decision.

You still can use a stacked sequence, but you have to convert a flat sequence to stacked one with a right click. Stacked sequences are kind of "obsolete" and you should use other constructs to improve your programs.

 

 It is a useful space-saving format - the only reason why one might not like it is that they might lose sight of what is in the lower layers. In my opinion such individuals need to improve their documentation techniques

It might be a space saver in the first place, but it is counterproductive in the long run. And you better improve documentation by using a state machine (with a nice self-documenting Enum) or subVIs (with proper documentation in the help window) instead of stacking frames in a sequence…

Best regards,
GerdW


using LV2016/2019/2021 on Win10/11+cRIO, TestStand2016/2019
0 Kudos
Message 58 of 195
(1,223 Views)

@ Stel:  If you don't want the SSS removed from LabVIEW...  Perhaps it's best NOT to revive an old thread called "Remove the SSS from LabVIEW".  Smiley Very Happy

LabVIEW Pro Dev & Measurement Studio Pro (VS Pro) 2019 - Unfortunately now moving back to C#, .NET, Python due to forced change to subscription model by NI. 8^{
0 Kudos
Message 59 of 195
(1,213 Views)

Perhaps NI should have removed the sequence structure altogether.  I am aware of the conversion from flat to stacked - however converting from one to another is not exactly efficient.  There are a lot of applications already written that require maintenance and update and despite the strives for improvements in coding practice maintaining such code is necessary.  This means conforming to aspects of the code that may be a little passe - such as stacked sequences.  Like with many things, programming goes through changes and what was considered good practice in the past is reviewed and altered with hindsight.  History dictates that what may be prescribed as the best approach today is likely to be thought of as short sighted tomorrow.

0 Kudos
Message 60 of 195
(1,206 Views)