DQMH Consortium Toolkits Feature Requests

Loving the latest Validation tool, but I found a few improvements.  Putting it all here in one feature request for now.

1. Make Validation issues sortable by issue
   Background: I recently ran the validation over an old application (DQMH 5).  It seemed to sort things by VI.  It would be nice to be able to sort the list by issue, so that you can easily tick off each issue one at a time.  You can do that at the moment by multiple clicking separate lines, but it would be nicer if it was grouped together.

2. Put a tip somewhere on the panel: "Tip: Double click a row to show the issue." 

3. Double click didn't seem to work every time.  I tried it on a few issues, and nothing seemed to open or do anything.

4. Display a warning dialog after the Fix All Issues button is pressed.  I accidentally pressed Fix All Issues instead of Fix Selected Issues, and it just blazed away.  Suggest a dialog: "This will fix all issues listed here.  Do you want to continue?"

5. Fix All Issues button location - I prefer to use Fix Selected Issues, and it's so tempting to just press Fix All Issues.  Not sure what the answer is here, but perhaps Fix Selected Issues should be where Fix All Issues button is.  This is probably quite subjective. If we implement previous suggestion, then this may not matter as much.

6. Where an issue will actually potentially delete/remove code from an existing VI, I suggest rather than a "Note:" description, separate the text and call it a "Warning" or something similar, and colour in red if possible so that it stands out. I can't remember which issue this was related to sorry, but it was only one issue.

7. When we get this:
The block diagram of RT Event Logger.lvlib:Main.vi contains a Register For Events function labeled "DQMH_REG_EVENTS". The source of the RT Event Logger Request Events terminal on this function is named "Event Logger Request Events". In order for the DQMH scripting tools to work correctly, change the source of this wire (usually a subVI output or a user event constant) to have a label of "RT Event Logger Request Events" instead.

This information was redundant by the time I'd already fixed the sub VI.  Perhaps add an extra note to this description: "Note: This may become automatically resolved by addressing the associated Sub VI" or something to that affect.

Feature request: The Add New Event dialog should always check the "add a button in the tester" Boolean by default.

Currently, it remembers whether you had it checked last time.

Reason #1: I think not adding a button is an exception, not the rule. Even though I didn't need a button last time doesn't mean that it's a pattern for how I work.

Reason #2: If you don't check it, the tester has empty events that are kind of useless until you add a button or reassign them to a different event. So you aren't saving the user any effort by not adding the button. My thinking is that it's the same amount of work to remove a button you don't want as it is to fix a broken event case.

When renaming an event, the dialog allows you to edit the description. But it doesn't allow you to add a carriage return/newline, so you're limited in the kinds of edits you can make.

I'd like to see the ability to enter CR/LFs.

Over the years I find myself adding the following two requests to my modules more and more frequently:

The MHL code for these requests is very simple, and it doesn't get in the way for modules that don't interact with subpanels. I think these requests should be added to the standard singleton and cloneable templates.

I am familiar with the "create your own module template" argument against ideas like this. I've made those same arguments before. And I've implemented my own module templates with these requests before. But present-day, I equate the utility of these subpanel functions with the utility of existing core requests like 'Show Panel', 'Hide Panel', and 'Show Diagram'.

In addition to adding these requests to the core templates, we should also add a subpanel to the API Testers to (1) be able to test these requests (obviously), and (2) demonstrate the ease with which a DQMH module can be integrated into an existing subpanel-based UI.

We all love that DQMH has that nice small icon of an antenna which allows identification of broadcasts easily.

Why not have something similar for requests to indicate, that this VI sends a message to the module and asks it to do something? 🤔

• 📩
• ➡️
• 📄
• 🗨️
• 🎯

Maybe place it to the left and use a complete different colour.

This is a blatant copy of an idea from 2021, but it came up in a recent customer meeting.

While I agree that modifying event arguments is possible to do manually, can we take another look at automating that?

Right now if an argument is added to / removed from the typedef, it requires the developer to manually perform a series of (scriptable) actions:

1. Open the public event VI
2. Create a new control or indicator OR remove existing
3. Expand the bundle/unbundle, and wire it in OR collapse the bundle/unbundle to get rid of the deleted argument(s)
4. Wire the new item to the conpane and set it to Required (in the case of a control)
5. Update the EHL case to make sure the cluster is properly bundled (can be checked by the validator)
6. Take care of updating the Tester

So here we have a multi-step process where things could be easily forgotten. Order of operations matters. The steps are well defined. The activity is dull. It feels like a good candidate for automation.

I like the new additions to DQMH 7.1 including the Private Wait for Reply events. It's a shame however, that the feature was not fully fleshed out. It would be convenient to have the ability to convert Private Requests to Private Request and Wait for Reply.

Improvement 1

It would be useful to be able to  remove multiple events of the same module in one operation. Currently only one event can be removed at a time.

Motivation: Just now I found myself having to remove four request events from a DQMH module. This involved launching the "Remove DQMH Event" window four times. This was slightly tedious due to:

• Having to navigate the relatively deeply nested menu four times (Tools > DQMH Consortium > DQMH > Event > Remove DQMH Event...).
• Having to wait for the dialogue to load four times. I'm working with a large codebase. This is the single slowest step for me at the moment. Using the Stopwatch functionality of the Windows Clock app I timed this load time at around 9 seconds. I took a single measurement. I have a feeling that the dialogue took longer than 9 seconds to load in the past (perhaps as much as 15 or 20 seconds).

Idea expansion:

• It might be useful to be able to delete multiple events that belong to multiple modules in one operation. This would be the most general form of the Remove operation. This is probably not a common use case, but people would find it useful every now and then.

Improvement 2

Currently the files associated with the event (the request VI, the CTL argument) are permanently deleted. It would be useful if there was a global setting that would make the deleted files go to the Recycle Bin (instead of being permanently deleted).

The excellent Delete File From Project by BasvE tool (https://www.vipm.io/package/basve_lib_lvdeletefile/) implements this functionality (global setting to dictate whether files are permanently deleted or sent to Recycle Bin).

Well, it is a corner case, but I somehow ran into the situation, that the xml metadata at <LabVIEW Data>\DQMH Module Templates\ defined a name for the API tester which was not correct, resulting in an error 7 message

Please add the path, which the scripting is trying to copy to the message, as a first hint.

Adding a note to check the XML would be a second nice hint for the user.

Offtopic: Lastly, I wonder, why the name of the API Tester needs to be present in the XML at all. I was expecting that the module validation fails, if the tester doesn't match the naming rule, which is also applied, when a module is being renamed. A quick test shows, that my assumption is not correct: The API Tester of a module can be named randomly. I am pretty sure, I have applied Fixes to API Testers via the validation dialogue in the past and I wonder how that works, if the naming rule is not required 🤔

When dropping the Error Handler and creating the string constant from the input terminal, the DQMH validator will complain about the wrong naming of that constant.

"The Helper Loops do not have a DQMH_HELPER_LOOP_NAME string constant wired to the 'Error Debug' input of the DQMH Error Handler - Helper Loop subVI"

Please change the name of the string input for the Delacor_lib_QMH_Error Handler - Helper Loop.vi from "Error Debug" to "DQMH_HELPER_LOOP_NAME".

When preparing a project for Lumos tracking...

Lumos adds "Trace VIs", when migrating this code to another PC without Lumos installed
When opening DQMH module it asks for all the "Trace VIs" and breaks the code...

It be great to have another option to Remove or Un-prepare project for Lumos Tracking and be able

to distribute this code without Lumos installed

Thanks! Great tool!

We have identified that, if multiple clonable module instances are executed and a specific module (e.g. the first launched module) is stopped (no waiting) and afterward all open modules are stopped at once (incl. wait) the "stop module.vi" an error 1 is returning.

Steps to reproduce

1. Create a project and add a new clonable module
2. Create a tester VI and implement the code above 
3. Run the VI and see error 1 at second Stop Module.

What is happening in the Background

Situation 1 - "Stall Data Flow" = 0

1. "Stop Module.vi" 2 runs into "Wait on Stop Sync.vi" and synchronizes stop over rendezvous.
   The acquired rendezvous size is 3 (Module 1 which is at stopping, Module 2 and Stop Module)
2. Module 1 is waiting in "Safe to Destroy Refnums.vi"
3. Module 2 runs into "Close Module.vi"
   

    

   1. Last clone instance is fire at (1)
   2. Releasing the Semaphore (2) will wake up module 1 that it is now safe to destroy refnums now.
      Module 2 runs into "Wait on Stop Sync.vi" (3) and synchronizes over rendezvous.
   3. "Stop Module.vi" and Module 2 waiting for a third participation to join the rendezvous.
   4. Module executes case to destroy Master reference.... and executes "Wait on Stop Sync.vi" (3) with no synchronization as the boolean "Wait for Module to stop?" is on false.
   5. Module 1 executes "Destroy Sync Refnums.vi" (4) and is destroying the rendezvous.
   6. Module 2 and "Stop Module.vi" will be release from the waiting of the rendezvous as the reference is now invalid and returning error 1.

Situation 2 - "Stall Data Flow" = e.g. 2000ms

1. In compare to the situation 1 the first module is already removed here. The obtained rendezvous has the expected size of 2.
2. When module 2 enters rendezvous synchronization in "Wait on Stop Sync.vi" (3) the expected amount of participant is reached, and the execution can continue.
3. In most of our tests, this situation worked fine and did not create an error.
4. For some situation, we had the behavior that shutdown of the first module seems to be faster as the wake-up from rendezvous of the second module. The module main of module 2 opened and showed error 1. Module 1 seems to destroy the references to early. 

Situation 3 - First Module will be stopped with last "Stop Module.vi" call

The shutdown of a module is for this scenario delayed (add a wait 1000ms to exit case of the module)

1. Stop Module 2 waits for 11 rendezvous participations. (10 module and itself)
2. One of the previously closed module will destroy the synchronization events and makes the rendezvous reference invalid. => Error 1 at "Stop Module.vi"

Potential Fix

Spoiler

The following screenshots are showing an extension of the "Stop Module.vi" and the "Close Module.vi".

The idea is to use a single element queue (SEQ) containing a map of sets. The key of the map refers to a "Stop Module.vi" which waits for stopping all module at the time when the "Stop Module.vi" is executed. The Set contains all Module ID's which should be stopped. Each module checks in its close condition if the SEQ is existing. If so, the module ID will be removed from the sets which containing the module ID. An empty set refers to all required modules have stopped and a notifier which is used for synchronization will be fired.
Close Module.vi extention
Stop Module.vi extention

 

With those extensions, all three described scenarios should be fixed. In addition, should it be possible to stop all module and launch in the background new ones, the stop and wait will wait until all those modules ID run at the stop execution are finished.

 

I added the project which the extensions and tests to the post.

Addition

I'm not sure, but I think that with the described change, destroy of the Module's Semaphore (1) should be done with the boolean condition of the First & Last Instance (2). (Red line)

Please let me know if you need any additional information and details.

Hi,

Most of the time we create multi-layer applications, and bottom modules need to share information that might have to cross several upper layers.

To avoid coupling and jumps between any non-adjacent layers, we have to create similar broadcast in the parent modules to repeat child broadcast one layer upper.

It would be interesting to have a utility that 'copies' an existing broadcast from one module into another.

And maybe have an option to code the forwarding :

1. automatically register for child broadcast in the parent if not done already
2. in the selected braodcast EHL case, map broadcast arguments onto parent broadcast VI inputs

I guess the same thing can be done when the communication needs to go down the layers, and therfore applied to requests.

In DQMH 7.0 you can create private requests now. This is a feature that I really like and the more you use something, the more ideas come to you.

In my current project I created a private request and shortly after I realized, that I need to call this request from another module. I tried to convert the private request into a public request, but this wasn't easy.

So here comes my idea: why is the conversation (public requests → private requests and privat requests → public requests) not included in the Convert DQMH Events dialogue? That would be the place where I would intuitively look for it.

Using DQMH 7.0.1.1316 (currently the latest version), the error message generated inside the Default case of the Message Handling Loop is "The invalid message string "%s" was received in the Message Handling Loop for module "%s"."

"The invalid message string "%s" was received in the Message Handling Loop of module "%s"." might be a small improvement.

I have 'barebones' singleton and cloneable module templates that I always use when creating new DQMH modules for projects. I started with the shipping module templates and removed:

- 'Do Something' events

- All #Bookmarks

- Simulate EHL/MHL error buttons

I propose DQMH ship with these simple module templates. They help save several minutes when creating a new module. I'm not suggesting changing the project template, but rather simply adding two new options in the Add New DQMH Module drop-down:

I'm open to suggestions for different names. 🙂

Today when an event is removed, no special actions are done in the testers and a 'manual search' has to be done in the module's main VI.

Here is what is suggested in DQMH help :

• In the case of a Request:
• In the Tester VI:
• Open the block diagram and find the event frame configured to test calling this request.
• ...
• In the DQMH Module Main.vi:
• Open the block diagram and find the event frame configured for this request (It might no longer be listed and instead say something like “Unknown Event (0x0)”).
• ...
• In the case of a Broadcast:
• In the Tester VI:
• Open the block diagram and find the event frame configured for this broadcast. (It might no longer be listed and instead say something like “Unknown Event (0x0)”.)
• ...
• In the Module Main VI:
• Open the block diagram and find the places where the broadcast VI is called and remove it.
• ...

It would be nice to attract dev eyes on the places where modifications need to be done post event-removing.

Maybe adding a comment like this would be enough ?

It is not much, but the comment color and hashtag would ease the 'finding' process.

IMHO, it would make more sense to have the Stop Module request at the same level than Start and Sync functions.

Let developer create own DQMH validation test which allows them to test company specific style and scripting.

At that point, it would although be great to store a test configuration. E.g. which tests should be executed and which severity a failing test hast.