Clear specific error

[David_L]

Good programming practice says to handle your errors.  If you want to clear a specfic error, you have to do some variation on the following code:

Since this can be pretty cumbersome in your code, I would love to have a Clear Specific error VI/function that will do exactly this.  It can also be polymorphic and accept an array of multiple errors.  To make it even better, you could probably merge it with the existing clear error VI and set it up where if the error input is empty, it clears all errors.

CaptainKirby made a nice community example that does all this, but I'd like it to be on the palette for everyone to use...

https://forums.ni.com/t5/Example-Code/Clearing-a-Specific-Error-From-The-Error-Cluster/ta-p/3517242

[crossrulz]

Yeah!  In development!  It might be a little late in the game to throw in suggestions here.  But I'm going to anyways.

What I have for my reuse library is a polymorphic VI.  The three polymorphic instances accept either a scaler integer, a 1D array of integers, or a boolean.  The instance to call is based on the input type.  So the scaler version does a simple check for that error and clears the error if it matches.  The array does a search of the current error code in the array of codes to clear.  The boolean either clears all or none.  All of these have an output for whether or not the error was cleared.  This output is very important when dealing with things like file I/O (read past the end of file causes an error, clear that error and stop your loop when that error is thrown).

My VI is also short to allow wires to go above it.  I doubt NI will do this, but I can hope.

[AristosQueue (NI)]

With some minor tweaks, Darren and I are proceeding with a VI that looks pretty much like the one suggested in the idea. We thought about a polyVI, but there were more issues with pushing that forward on short time scale left for 2014.

[Darin.K]

I must be the only one who primarily goes in the opposite direction.  I have VIs to only pass specific errors, or ranges of errors.

[AristosQueue (NI)]

Darin.K: That is definitely less common in my observation. If you white list "I only care about these errors", it is generally because you've decided that all other errors are fine to ignore, but it is very very hard to know all the possible errors that an given function can generate. If an error occurs that you never thought about, you generally want it to come through rather than being filtered.

[James@Work]

And, one more VI that I may soon be able to eliminate from my re-use library.

It will be fun to do a Find and Replace All for this function if it supports arrays.

Please, use my connections and icon...

[crossrulz]

As Stephen stated earlier, it will only clear a single error.  If you want to discuss it more, I suggest you join the beta and join the conversation on that board.

[AristosQueue (NI)]

James@Fann: Sorry... the beta deadline for changes to this function has passed. We are in final release stage. Darren and I did discuss the polyVI option for providing array support, but when he and I looked into this idea in January, we were told we could only make the change for 2014 if we did it with no mutation to user's existing VIs -- and swapping out a regular VI for a polyVI counts, but using an unused terminal on the conpane does not. The scalar filtering seemed more common in our judgement -- and we admit that was totally subjective. We were also guided by the fact that the scalar version was the one that had garnered the Kudos here on the forums. We are unlikely to revisit it in 2015. I'm sorry, but this is one VI you're going to have to keep in your personal toolset.