DQMH Consortium Toolkits Discussions

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

No Valid DQMH module found

Solved!
Go to solution

I have recently moved to a new PC in an upgrade from Win10 to Win11 and at the same time upgrading from LabVIEW 2018 to 2025 and from DQMH 6 to 7.1

 

As I now wanted to work on an existing project containing a DQMH module that used to work fine on my old PC, I'm met with a "No valid DQMH module found..." message when I try to either validate or add new requests.

 

I am quite certain, that I haven't removed any DQMH essentials from the project in the process. What can I have done wrong?

 

Thanks

Martin

0 Kudos
Message 1 of 5
(362 Views)

Make sure your module doesn't break any of the 'Minimum Requirements for Scripting Tools':

Module Elements :: DQMH Consortium Docs

 

If you're sure all of those rules are followed, is there any chance you could share the code? If so, send me a private message and I'll look into it.

 

 

0 Kudos
Message 2 of 5
(343 Views)

Hi Darren

 

I checked the list of minimum requirements, they all check out fine. Also, I find no VIs with broken run-arrows.

 

I have attached the project in question. There are two projects inside the zip, one containing an API, the one containing the DQMH module, and one containing the parent class which the API inherits, if you need this.

 

Thanks

Martin

 

 

0 Kudos
Message 3 of 5
(314 Views)
Solution
Accepted by topic author MarLentz

You've added a virtual folder layer of "Modules" in your module library:

Darren_0-1759934378102.png

 

The DQMH Scripting Tools expect the organization within the module library to be unchanged. If you remove this virtual folder layer, the scripting tools will work:

Darren_1-1759934419534.png

 

Note that I also removed the tester from the module. It is recommended (but not required) that the tester *not* be a member of the DQMH library... this allows you to ensure that the Public API of the module is truly public.

Message 4 of 5
(307 Views)

Thanks, hadn't realised this. However, the extra virtual folders were a remainder from an older structure which is not needed now.

 

Cheers

Martin

0 Kudos
Message 5 of 5
(301 Views)