topic Value vs Value Signaling? in G Web Development Software

Value vs Value Signaling?

bhpowell — Fri, 10 Dec 2021 20:44:52 GMT

I have a loop surrounding an event structure, with one of the cases set to "value changed" for a pair of timestamp controls. In this case, I update the values of the timestamp controls using the "Value" property.

From what I can tell, it is behaving as if it is doing "Value Signaling" instead. The event structure keeps triggering over and over again when setting the "Value" properties. This happens in both the G Web IDE as well as a browser.

Am I doing something wrong, or is the "Value" property always supposed to trigger a "Value Changed" event in this software?

Re: Value vs Value Signaling?

MilanR — Fri, 17 Dec 2021 03:45:42 GMT

Hi Brian,

This seems to be an issue specific to the Timestamp control. I attached an example that shows the Timestamp unexpectedly triggering a Value change event when updated with a Value property node (non-signaling) while a Numeric updated with a Value property node (non-signaling) behaves as expected and does not trigger Value change events. I created bug 1769556 to track the issue.

Re: Value vs Value Signaling?

ThamS — Tue, 21 Dec 2021 10:33:12 GMT

Yeah, I also experience it.

when we change it via value properties (non signaling), the event fired once.

when we change it using the signaling one, the event fired twice.

even more, if it is control, the event is fired just at the beginning run of the web page.

@MilanR wrote:

I created bug 1769556 to track the issue.

Btw, Where can I find the bug issue status? I may need to follow-up the bug fixing. or to add kudos.

Re: Value vs Value Signaling?

MilanR — Tue, 21 Dec 2021 17:31:19 GMT

@MilanR wrote:

I created bug 1769556 to track the issue.

Btw, Where can I find the bug issue status? I may need to follow-up the bug fixing. or to add kudos.

That is the bug ID in the internal NI bug tracker. If you have follow-up comments you can reply on this thread or reach out to NI Support. Currently there is not a target fix date available or a recommended workaround for the behavior discussed.