Control Alignment test with Array Controls/Indicators vs normal Controls/Indicators

[cbutcher]

Just a quick question (sort-of complete with answer) about the Control Alignment test.

For me, this test often returns a false failure that I don't particularly like - especially when using array controls/indicators.

Below are three screenshots (VIs attached with 2017 LabVIEW, for the curious) showing some example cases.

v1v2v3

Here, v1 shows pretty much what I'd like to be the passing case. I don't know if others would agree with me - perhaps you think that the index display is the part that should be aligned. Note, that if the index display is hidden, this case passes.

v2 shows a passing case with arrays. The buttons for the numeric control can either be aligned with the grid, or half-off, but only to the right, as shown in v3, which also passes the Control Alignment test.

If I move the numeric controls such that the box lines up with the edge of the "error in" cluster, then the test fails, but they don't have to both have the same edge.

The connector pane is shown in each case since it forms part of the test - apologies for the large images in this thread.

[Darren · Accepted solution]

Yes, the Control Alignment test looks at the left-most pixel of the control/indicator, regardless of what "part" of the control/indicator makes up that pixel.

The easiest solution for now (assuming you don't want to change your front panel) would be to increase the 'Pixel Tolerance' setting of the test from 10 to about 50. That should cover the default size of the array indexer, assuming you haven't widened it.

For the future, do you think the test would benefit from a setting along the lines of, "Ignore array indexers"? Any other customizations you can think of that this test would benefit from?

[cbutcher]

Ah - so the pixel tolerance, set at 10, is enough for half a grid point off (6 by default) but not one full grid point. Thanks for pointing out this setting, along with a possible size increase to allow array indexing.

---

@Darren wrote:

For the future, do you think the test would benefit from a setting along the lines of, "Ignore array indexers"? Any other customizations you can think of that this test would benefit from?

---

For me, that would be great, but I don't know if it's something others would want. Is that sort of customization something that might be possible?

 As to other modifications/customizations, I can't really think of any.  

Spoiler

Whilst sometimes I rearrange controls slightly to minimize the FP total size (for example, if an indicator uses lots of FP space, I might move it left and have the right edges align so that I can use the middle top/bottom and still not increase the panel size wildly), it seems reasonable that those examples should fail - after all, that's the point of the test.

Future abilities to ignore specific failures as described in the idea exchange along with your implementation for the 2016 VIA, with possible future improvements, would no doubt be ideal in those small number of cases.