Wired terminal in Sub Diagram - VI Analyzer

[Jim_Glanz]

When I run the VI Analyzer I get the following results

Wired termianl in sub diagram-

The control terminal "Log File Path" does not reside on the top-level diagram.   In order to avoid unnecessary memory copies, control and indicator terminals that are wired on the connector pane should be placed on the top-level diagram.

This brings me to the question-

 Should the control terminals reside outside of the error case statement or between the error case and the state machine case?

The VI analyzer is only happy when the terminals are outside the error case.

Jim

[tst]

The top-level diagram is the outermost layer, as you've found yourself, so that answers your question.

That said, this isn't a requirement. Like the comment for the test says, this should be done if you want to take advantage of certain optimizations, but the VI will work correctly even if you don't.

[Jim_Glanz]

I was just wondering what the best practices would be. The NI training courses have the control terminals inside the error case, but the VI Analyzer likes them outside.

I am just seeing conflicting practices.

Which would way be preferred for the certification exams?

Regards

JIm

[Ben · Accepted solution]

The "Correct method" is to do as the VIAnalyzer says.

"Wrap-your-head-in-duct-tape" and then read through this thread.

I would HOPE the graders on the exam would know that but I can't speak for the "right answer".

Ben

[Jim_Glanz]

I did not see that this was already discussed in detail. I did try to do a search but could not find anything among the thousands of postings I thank you for the thread. I am fairly new to LabView and I am trying to do best practices so I get it right the first time. I have found the VI Analyzer can be a very helpful tool, but like anything else documentation can be conflicting. Maybe in the future the LabView Course manuals will run the VI Analyzer and be able to correct some of there own architecture. With this said, I do understand that changing course material would be a very large and costly effort, so maybe a footnote would do in new revisions.

Thank you for your time

Jim

[Ben]

---

@Jim Glanz wrote:

I did not see that this was already discussed in detail. ... 

Thank you for your time

Jim

---

Don't you give that a second thought. THe Searh engine on the Forum is terrible and many of us have been pushing to get it fixed. To have found that thread you would have had to have known the secret search phrase...

"Clear as mud"

Take care,

Ben

[Darren]

I will be going over some revisions to our course manuals in the coming months...I will keep an eye out for this issue (and any others that seems to conflict with the recommendations we make in the VI Analyzer Toolkit).

[Ben]

---

@Darren wrote:

I will be going over some revisions to our course manuals in the coming months...I will keep an eye out for this issue (and any others that seems to conflict with the recommendations we make in the VI Analyzer Toolkit).

---

OH PLEASE DO!

I have been keeping two sets of correct answers. One set I use every day and another set I use for the exams.

Warning: bad pun follows

I have been using the week-ends since Thanksgiving to review the "right answers" for the CLA-R exam. This past week-end was an absolutley LabVIEWless week-end.

Ben