DQMH Consortium Toolkits Feature Requests

As users of SVN for source code control, we rely on SVN-Locks to maintain a conflict-free development environment when collaborating with multiple project team members.

When working on DQMH Projects as a team, it would greatly enhance our workflow if we could selectively apply SVN locks to specific subsets of the project.

Currently, the DQMH scripting necessitates write access to the entire project, limiting flexibility in group collaborations. 

Is it feasible to consider modifying this behavior to provide increased flexibility and efficiency for group work?

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.

Please add a test to the Validate Module tool:

Find all while loops in the Main.vi of the specified module(s), and check if the DQMH Error Handler - Helper loop.vi is used to handle errors in each of the while loops, and flag it if not.  Ignore the default EHL and MHL in this check.

By default, in the MHL Error case, the "error out" local variable is written to.  But the error that is written is NOT the error that came into the MHL Error case!

I propose the above be changed to this:

By doing this, the actual error that was raised by the module will be copied to "error out"

When you update the DQMH version, you can have hundreds of failures to fix in your projects (not because everything is broken but just because, for example, a new feature requires updating a VI).

A fixer is available most of the time, and you just have to click the button to make the code change.

For me, the UX issue is that after you hit the fix button, you need to select the next failure with your mouse and then click on the fix button. I'm not too fond of this kind of mouse gymnastics.

My proposition: If the fix is successful, the next failure could be selected automatically.

The fixing process would be significantly improved.

Greetings from France

be able to upgrade the module type, for example singleton type to cloneable type, would be a great feature.

menu -> DQMH -> Module -> updgrade

A+

Luc

Hi,

Today when I finish creating an event / module, If I want to create a new one I've got to click again on Tools => Delacor => DQMH => Create...

Sometimes, after planning my architecture I'll need to create several modules/events in a row to start building my app.

Going through the menus each time is a pain in such case.

Maybe replacing the OK button by a Create button and a Create and Continue button would help to this (like you can have using Redmine for example).

The Create button would act like the OK button today.

The Create and Continue button would generate the new event / module but without closing the window.

It would simply reset the fields to their defaut values (and reopen a new virgin payload/paramater window in case of creating an event).

This way creating several items in a row would be really faster and easier.

(more details in the ppt attached)

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.

When creating a new event for a module and my project contains numerous modules, finding the correct module in the list can be somehow painfull.

Listing the DQMH modules in alphabetic order would help finding the correct module faster.

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.

Today most of our screens support a 1920x1080 resolution.

And the actual space that I can basically use in the MHL is 530x315 pixels (roughly, surface of the MHL minus subdiagram comment).

Which means that my useful coding surface is only 30% of my screen resolution.

I guess the EHL and MHL can be designed wider so that we have more space for our custom code.

When validating a number of modules and going through the list of fixes, it's sometimes hard to keep track of what has already been fixed.

It would be nice to have some information on which failures were already fixed, and whether the fix was applied successfully or if there were errors or if there's a need for manual work.

I just put some icons into the screenshot to illustrate my idea - my feature request asks for a prettier implementation 😉

The below image comes from the Error Reported broadcast event case in the API Tester (as found in the default Singleton or Cloneable DQMH module templates):

This produces strings that look like this:

This could be improved by adding the "message" component of the error, by using the Simple Error Handler.vi.  Using the message makes the error report more descriptive, and doesn't rely on the user having to use "Explain Error" to review what the error code's could possibly be related to.

This produces strings that look like this:

Observe that the error message is now present in the text.

1)I don't think it's possible in DQMH 5.0 to modify arguments of one Event without removing it and re-create it. Lots scripting but very useful. Perhaps, in the convert tool menu?

2) Remove automatically all vi's and controls create during event creation if there is a problem during this process. I have encountered this problem and I have lost time before understanding why I couldn't recreate the same event.

Hi,

In order to reduce the number of clicks to launch a DQMH scripter, that would be great to be able to launch them from the LabVIEW New... menu !

Indeed this window has several advantages :

1. The tree view keeps its layout from one excution to another. So if the last thing I did from that window was to launch the 'New Event...' scripter, next time I'll launch this window this item will be directly accessible
2. It allows inserting the created code into the project or not. So to create quick code without adding it to the currently open project, this is quite usefull
3. The tree view makes easier to choose the scripter to launch. With Tools menu, if the mouse pointer accidently leaves the menu and overs another menu entry, you've got to go back and re-do some of the menu selection process
4. A LV keyboard shortcut can be added to the New... action. In my case I redirected the CTRL+N shortcut to launch the 'New...' window instead of triggering the 'New VI' action. It would allow me to launch a scripter with 1 keyboard shortcut + 1 double click ! Quite fast !

I use the Show Diagram debugging request on DQMH modules all the time. But sometimes it's not quite enough, like if there is a bug in my module *initialization*. By the time I fire the Show Diagram request, there is no way for me to debug the initialization problem. And when I say "initialization", I'm not only referring to the Initialize message in the MHL, but also all the code on the left side of the diagram that executes before we even get to the EHL and MHL.

I propose the following:

1. Add a new data member to the Module Admin class: "Show Diagram on Init"

2. Add a new input to Start Module.vi that sets this flag on the Module Admin class that is passed to the Main VI. Default is FALSE.

3. In the Main VI, if this flag is true, then Init Module.vi will show the diagram of the main VI on initialization AND turn on Retain Wire Values.

With these changes, the block diagram of the Main VI will appear immediately on init, and we can probe any wires on the diagram that executed during initialization to see their values.

It would be nice if there were a validate+fixer for this, but given that it is a debugging feature (as opposed to a change in framework behavior), I'm fine if there is no validate+fixer.

Hi,

Including DQMH modules into our application framework, we need to script the creation of new modules / requests and so on.

However, current scripting GUIs do not have any controls connected to the connector pane.

Also, even if we could pass some values to these interfaces, we would even need to control if we want to show their HMI or control the creation / cancellation of a scripting action whitout having to press on the OK / Cancel button.

Allowing to programmatically control the DQMH scripting VIs would be great !!

I’d like to suggest making the DQMH scripting tools API public. This would allow new events or modules to be generated programmatically.

My use case: I’d like to take any non-DQMH library and generate a DQMH layer for the library’s public API. With some clever coding and discipline, this could automate the creation of a TestStand API based on DQMH, which would be incredibly useful.

Moreover, public APIs often encourage the development of supporting tools and promote the technology, especially within creative communities.

When creating a new DQMH event, I'd like this