LabVIEW Idea Exchange

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
JÞB

Conditional Error Ring

Status: Declined

National Instruments will not be implementing this idea. Given the execution overhead of the node, the Error Ring should be called conditionally in a case structure whenever its value is needed at run-time.

Capture.PNG

Of course, the two examples would produce identical outputs.  One would take a bunch fewer clicks and BD space though.


"Should be" isn't "Is" -Jay
30 Comments
AristosQueue (NI)
NI Employee (retired)

Darren was trying to state the workaround not trying to explain why the idea was declined.

wiebe@CARYA
Knight of NI

Declined: National Instruments will not be implementing this idea. Given the execution overhead of the node, the Error Ring should be called conditionally in a case structure whenever its value is needed at run-time.

 

Sounded like it to me.

 

So what is the reason?

AristosQueue (NI)
NI Employee (retired)

It was badly stated. Sorry about that.

The reason? It's as I said. Darren and I looked at our current priority lists, the existence of a pretty simple workaround, and the work involved in the mutation and save for previous code, and decided we just weren't ever going to prioritize this addition. We're trying to be honest about what our teams have bandwidth to do and what just isn't going to happen.

wiebe@CARYA
Knight of NI

OK . I thought the nr. of kudo's was part of the equation too.

JÞB
Knight of NI

It's fairly straight forward to roll out your own template implementing Darren's idea.  I'll try to whip something up for the mythical 8-Ball toolkit and post a vit or two.


"Should be" isn't "Is" -Jay
wiebe@CARYA
Knight of NI

>It's fairly straight forward to roll out your own template implementing Darren's idea.  I'll try to whip something up for the mythical 8-Ball toolkit and post a vit or two.

 

You'll need some hardcore XNode development to match the error ring behavior, .vits won't cut it. 

 

Not impossible, starting with a copy. But of course you need to do all the work again once the 2019 error ring (win some, lose some) is released. I don't think a merge will do the trick.

AristosQueue (NI)
NI Employee (retired)

> OK . I thought the nr. of kudo's was part of the equation too.

 

It is part of that equation. Fourteen is far down in the long tail of Idea Exchange requests. I just cannot justify the effort given all the other things to work on. It's not hard, it's just time.

wiebe@CARYA
Knight of NI

>It is part of that equation. Fourteen is far down in the long tail of Idea Exchange requests. I just cannot justify the effort given all the other things to work on. It's not hard, it's just time.

 

Sure, but this related one got it's plug pulled within 24 hours of creation, for more or less the same reason I suppose. Might at least have given it a change to get some kudo's.

 

AristosQueue (NI)
NI Employee (retired)

It's essentially the identical request. Yes, they serve different exact purposes, but, for all intents and purposes, the evaluation is the same.

wiebe@CARYA
Knight of NI

I see them as complementary, but indeed similar in nature. The advantages and disadvantages ("save to previous" and "it takes time") are the same.

 

If development time is the only issue, would posting a modified error ring help at all? Haven't looked into the "save to previous" construction for a while, but if it is doable for outsiders and time is the only issue, than there still is a solution.

 

Having this and the other idea will save me time on a daily basis.