More Stubs in Templates and Better Organization in Auto-Generated VIs

[bienieck]

When I first saw the auto-generated VIs in the DQMH framework, I was surprised at how chaotic they looked, despite being automatically generated. I thought, "Alright, it’s auto-generated anyway, so there's no point in worrying about it." However, it kept bothering me. Eventually, I decided, "I’ll replace the template with one where the elements are better organized, and I can also add a few small modifications of my own."

However, when I tried to do this, I realized that the templates didn’t include stubs for everything, and what was generated from scratch covered much more than I had expected. This completely disrupted my plans.

Therefore, I would like to request a modification of the generation process so that the templates include more stubs, which the generator replaces in a more predictable manner. Additionally, I’d appreciate clear documentation that would allow me to customize the template without risking breaking anything. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I don’t think there are that many possible combinations in these templates?

I’m most interested in the request templates, but I believe the idea could be generalized to other cases as well.

[Taggart]

I thought, "Alright, it’s auto-generated anyway, so there's no point in worrying about it." However, it kept bothering me.

Sometimes there is joy and a sort of zen in accepting things the way they are and letting go. Things can be imperfect and still be perfectly functional.

On a practical note, I think the scripting there is probably complicated enough that you are unlikely to get what you are asking for (although there is never any harm in asking).

As far as not breaking the scripting code, my first thought was the DQMH Validator would catch if you modified something and it broke the scripting. However as I think more about it, I don't think that solves your problem because the validator checks the code inside a module not the templates that are used by the scripting code.

A validator for the template code might be something worth thinking about and may be more likely to get accepted.

[mbaudot]

Hi Michał,

Thanks a lot for taking the time to share your feature request with us. While we won’t be moving forward with it at this time, we’d love to better understand your perspective. If you’re open to it, could you provide a more detailed example of how you would envision the reorganization? That could help us see where there might be room for improvement or clarification in the future.

In the meantime, just a quick reminder: for users who want to actively support or accelerate feature development, we have a donation link available, and we’re also working on a way to prioritize sponsored features (feel free to get in touch with us if you  would like to pay for this)

Also, don’t forget that DQMH includes Templates (and Hooks/Scripting Plugins coming very soon with 7.1) to help with customization, and we’re proud of our documentation (even if there's always room to make it better).

Thanks again for helping us make DQMH better!

Best regards,
The DQMH Team