LabVIEW Idea Exchange

I would like to drag items such as the iteration terminal and conditional terminal to the corners of a structure(i.e. while loop) and have the snap to their default locations,much like the way labels will snap to their respective controls, indicators, and constants when you drag them near the item.  This becomes a problem when you wire something to one of these terminals and then resize the loop or structure.  The terminals remain where they are currently located instead of moving with the structure boundary. 

I think it would be more convenient if the Source Name for timed loops whas changed to an enumerator instead of a string. So the user could easily select the source from the block diagram or front panel. I guess external clocks would be a different story.

When using the Number of Rows property of a tree control, as shown below, the number of row returned does not reflect the number of rows with actual data. As you can see in Front Panel screenshot, the tree control has only 3 rows of data, but the property node indicates that there are 12 rows. This is because in the Properties window for the tree control, the number of rows is set the 12. The Number of Rows Property Node help file indicates that this property counts "partial rows" which means this property node is used correctly. However, it would be useful to have a property node which displays the rows with data.

For example, I was trying to implement a function to move a tree index down in the tree control. I wanted to implement functionality so that when the current row + 1 was greater than the maximum number of rows, set the new row to 0. However, since the maximum rows property is 12, not 3, in the below screenshot, the program would throw an error with this logic.  

Hi All,

I'd like to put up an idea I had about a 'pass through' node for case structures. I had the idea when working with the in-place element. What I would like is a pair of nodes - like shift register nodes - where the input and output are identical unless the inner loop is wired. In this way it would be like a shift register on a FOR LOOP when the index is wired to zero.

The idea of this would be to clean up case structures - in particular where you might have 3 or 4 wires going through multiple cases in a state machine. You have to make sure they are all wired up and they clutter up your block diagram. With these nodes you only have to work on the wire you are actually changing in a particular case and then ignore the rest of them.

I also though that if you wire a cluster to a 'pass through' node you could have the option to 'Unbundle/Bundle Elements' similar to the option in the InPlace Element Structure. Please note this change I'm suggesting is cosmetic/useability - I don't think this should have inplaceness associated with it. I reused the nodes because they were easy to copy and paste.

I've added an example of what it could look like - this is a simple case structure to initialise a cluster, increment it and exit the state machine. In the initialise state the inside of the 'pass through node' is wired and then goes into the shift register. For the increment case it is unbundled, incremented, rebundled and passed back out. Note that for both these cases the False boolean is passed through the shift register - without a wire - and then enters the stop node. In the exit case the cluster data is passed through the case without a wire and could be read outside the loop by wiring to the shift register (if I'd thought to draw it) whlie in this case the boolean now reads true and the loop is stopped.

 The second change I'd like to suggest is to allow a case structure node to be associated with a specific element in a cluster. Allow us to wire a cluster - which contains at least one string, enum, boolean etc - straight to the case structure node and out the other side. Then right click on the case structure node to choose which element the case structure reads!

 And of course allow the 'case structure node' to double as a 'pass through node' also and I would be very happy programmer! 

I look forward to your comments - and Kudos,

Thanks,

Dave

PS if anyone has a better name than 'pass though node' please holler - it sounds worrying like a laxative;-)