LabVIEW Idea Exchange

Community Browser
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Post an idea

After working with text-based languages recently, I've become more aware of a very painful flaw in the LabVIEW IDE.

 

First of all, as software engineer, I like to perform experiments. Make a small change, test it. If it doesn't work, then just use Git to roll back the changes. I've been doing this for years, and with LabVIEW it has been fairly painful. Until recently I didn't realize there was a better way.

Why is it painful? Everytime I use Git to check out a different branch or roll things back, I am forced to close LabVIEW or at least close the project so that LabVIEW detects and loads the new code from disk instead of whatever it has in memory. I lived with that for years because I didn't know any better.

 

Enter text-based programming and IDEs: VSCode, PyCharm, probably any other modern IDE. I try an experiment, it doesn't work. I roll the changes back in Git and guess what? I don't have to open and close anything! The IDE just automatically detects the file has changed and loads the new file!

 

When is LabVIEW going to get with the times?

You cannot currently install MAX as a standalone product- you need to install it along with something else. I need MAX on basically all computers I build my installers for, so I always go into the Additional Installers menu on the Application Builder, then pick (usually) "DAQmx with Configuration Support". Unfortunately, this also means I have to uncheck "Automatically select additional installers" so I can go find the "Configuration Support" item.

 

I almost always want to let the App Builder pick my additional installers for me, so I will check "Automatically select", then uncheck it, then go check the box for "...with Configuration Support" for one of the items that got automatically selected.

 

I'd like a box that lets me prefer the "With configuration support" version of whatever I'm building so I can make sure MAX gets installed. For my use, it doesn't seem to matter if I pick "DAQmx with config support", "VISA with config support", etc.

 

I'd ask to make MAX a standalone installer, but that would require me to uncheck the "automatic" box to add MAX to the list, which doesn't really help. I just want to say "Hey Appbuilder, figure out whatever you need, and ALSO install MAX."

 

Pro-grade mockup shown below:

BertMcMahan_0-1753792749382.png

 

Idea Part 1: The menu that appears when right-clicking an input of the Replace Array Subset node should contain Add Input and Remove Input options.

Idea Part 2: The QuickDrop Remove and Rewire tool (Ctrl + Space, Ctrl + Shift + R) should remove unwired inputs of the Replace Array Subset node.

 

2 (edited).png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This would be similar to the menus of several other well-loved nodes, such as the Build Array node.

 

Real-world example

The other day I wrote the following code:

1.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initially all the inputs of the Replace Array Subset node were wired. Then I realised I had made a mistake, and needed to remove the third-last pair of wires. I deleted the wires. So far so good.

 

I then selected the node and pressed Ctrl + Space, Ctrl + Shift + R to execute the QuickDrop Remove and Rewire tool, in the hope that it would eliminate the unwired input. It didn't. I then right-clicked the input, hoping to manually select Remove Input. That option didn't exist.

 

The only option I had was to manually disconnect the last four wires and reconnect them one input above, followed by removing the last input by dragging the bottom edge upwards.

 

Having to manually disconnect and reconnect wires was a little disconcerting. I wondered: what would have happened if I had made a mistake with say the second input, instead of the third-last input? A lot more manual wiring would have had to be redone.

 

Notes

The Wire Multiple Objects Together QuickDrop tool (Ctrl + W) is extremely useful. However, at the moment it has the following limitation.

 

The other day I found myself writing code like the following.

1 (edited).png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Naturally I tried using the QuickDrop Ctrl + W tool. However, it produced the result seen below, which is not what I wanted.

2 (edited).png

 

The Ctrl + W tool wires each source wire to a compatible (coerceable) destination. In the example above it wires to I32 and DBL destinations indiscriminately.

 

The desired outcome would be achieved if the tool preferred wiring to destinations that match the source data type exactly, before considering other compatible (coercible) destinations. In the example above, the tool should prefer the DBL destinations. It should wire to the DBL destinations first, before considering I32 destinations.

Notes

  • The example above shows 10 wires being wired between the Index Array node and the Replace Array Subset node. The real-world VIs I was programming the other day required wiring multiple pairs of Index Array and Replace Array Subset nodes, some with as many as 30 wires between them. Wiring them manually was a tedious and time-consuming operation.
  • This idea is somewhat related to the following idea: Improvement to the QuickDrop Ctrl+W tool: Wire constant to multiple destinations

The asterisk (*) that LabVIEW automatically places in the title bar when a file is modified should be placed first not last so that it can be seen when the window is too narrow to display the whole string, e.g. where other programs like Notepad.exe put it when then text truncation is indicated by an ellipsis (...). Some titles can be much longer when they include lvlib and lvclass contexts.

 

ast.jpg

I understand that empty interface boxes should reflect their purpose, but this design decision wastes too much block diagram space. When using interfaces, explicit type casting is often necessary by definition. Unfortunately, this quickly clutters the block diagram.

Quiztus2_0-1747037507652.png

 

Currently if you draw a diagram disable structure around a section of code any wire coming out of it will be set to "Use Default if Unwired". This is almost never the desired behavior, and can easily lead to bugs if people forget to connect wires through on the Enabled case. The VI should be broken until the developer makes any necessary changes in the Enabled case. Diagram Disable Idea.png

Since the call library function node (3) supports wild-cards it is not clear which DLL file is physically used during runtime. Nevertheless this information can be interesting and important in some cases. Currently there is no way to get this information (1). Therefore I suggest to show the DLL-Path-Output always (2). It shall return the entire path and name of the currently loaded DLL.

 

Andi_S_1-1744715630648.png

 

 

Hopefully low hanging fruit? I'm constantly checking the error list when working in a VI that's part of a broken class hierarchy to see if the VI itself has errors or if it's just due to a hierarchy error or dependency error. I often repeatedly check it to confirm if the VI I'm currently working in has the errors and could save a bunch of time if something was different about the broken run arrow and I only had to glance at it to confirm I can move elsewhere in my development as expected, or continue to the error list to see what's really broken.

The following code will essentially do what I want, but I want this to be natively incorporated into the IDE as an option.

CaseyM_0-1695271655726.png

 

90%+ of the VIs that I write have a front panel that doesn't get shown to the end user, and yet, whenever you open a VI what does it show you? The front panel. I think the default behavior of opening a VI should be to show the block diagram ONLY. This would have several advantages for the developer:

  1. Fewer windows to manage - Even if you minimize the front panel, you can still accidentally restore the FP when you Alt-Tab or click in the taskbar which brings me to...
  2. Less clutter in the taskbar - Once you open more than a couple VIs, navigating to the block diagram of the VI you want in the taskbar becomes very unwieldy.
  3. You could more easily get to the BD of VIs running in a subpanel.
  4. It would be possible to get to the BD of a VI that has a custom run-time menu where Ctrl-E is disabled.

Ideally this would be an option in the Tools --> Options dialog (that I would always turn on).

 

This idea is similar to one posted almost 15 years ago, but I don't consider this a duplicate because this takes things a step further by not opening the FP at all.

Certain keyboard shortcuts are standard across operating systems and applications. When doing text entry, LabVIEW implements ctrl-c, crtl-v, and ctrl-arrow keys for text selection and manipulation, but does not allow ctrl-a. I have implemented this for string controls. 

 

I would like to see this be the default behavior for all text entry. 

 

In LabVIEW, ctrl-a currently selects all objects on the FP or BD. But when the cursor is in an active text field, ctrl-a should select all text in that field. This should include strings, tables, graph labels, control labels and captions, numeric controls and indicators, free labels, and so on, and should work in development and at runtime.

I have a habit of putting an enum with a digital display visible in each of my case structure frames controlled via enum.

 

It has become second nature already. Today I stopped and wondered why we can't simply include a digital representation as an "[X]" appended in the visible selector.

 

So here I am asking for it.

 

Intaris_0-1728572984028.png

 

Similar ideas have already been posted but non of them totally hits what I'm missing.

 

As always - what is the current situation?:
- LabVIEW is installed under "C:\Program Files (x86)\..." - this is a folder where admin rights are usually required to modify it.

- in the named folder the standard VIs are included: vi.lib / user.lib / instr.lib

- my project lays somewhere else - e.g. "C:\myLVProjects\project1", "C:\myLVProjects\project2", ...

- my first project is LabVIEW32 bit, my second is LV64bit,
- one project needs to have the binary code separated from the VI, the other one not
- one projects needs some toolkits from the VI Package manager, the other one not or maybe even incompatible ones to the first project

- one project needs VIs from an additional search path, the other one too but with a different version


long story short:
There are many situations where the configurations of two or more projects conflict with each other. Therefore, switching between two projects can be quite effortful — from adjusting configurations to (de)installing toolkits.

What I like to propose is the following:
Having a new option in the LabVIEW start screen "Create a new development environment".
The only the user has to do is to select a folder on a drive with enough free space.
LabVIEW shall now setup an entire code- and configuration environment. Means it copies vi.lib, user.lib, instruments.lib to this folder. It create a LabVIEW.ini and a link to the exe using this INI. It creates a folder for the compiled object code cache and so on. Installing add-ons from VI package manager shall also be stored in this new folder structure.
And of course, there shall be a place where I can manually add some libraries, my project files and finally also my build results.
If LabVIEW is now started from the named link it only uses the VIs from the environment folder as long relative paths are used (which shall be default).

Again in short:
I expect an encapsulated environment that contains everything that is needed to develop one project entirely independent from a second and third project.

 

The connector pane is a very useful feature for defining what the parameters for the VI are, therefore how it interacts with its environment.

On the other hand, the development experience did not age well. The 32x32 icon that is divided into smaller areas based on the pattern selected for the VI feel small on today's screens. On top of that most of the functionality is hidden behind the context menu.

This feels like a lacking experience for a crucial feature, but we grow accustomed to it, there we do not complain. But that doesn't mean things cannot be improved.

I would personally prefer a new window being opened when I want to edit the connector pane. The pane itself could be represented with 5x magnification (or even better, user selectable): 160x160 pixels.

On the pane, we could have a dedicated drop down that facilitates the selection of the pattern.

On each connector we could have a border representing its current state: Dynamic dispatch/Required/Recommended/Optional.

Cycling trough these states would be available on left click, for example, and reversing the direction with a shortcut, like ALT + left click.

Connecting the front panel terminals to the connector pane could be done by dragging and dropping to the desired place. To make sure that mistakes do not happen, the drag operations shall not move the front panel controls on the panel itself.

To make the workflow as smooth as possible buttons could be added to Apply the new connector pane, Apply and reorganize the front panel, Reorganize the front panel or Cancel the whole operation.

To make sure that we don't lose existing functionality the CTRL + left click shortcut shall keep the swap terminals functionality (a.k.a.: switcheroo).

Removing controls from the connector pane could be done by the right click, or left click for selecting the terminal and then using the Delete button on the keyboard.

Other operations inside the context menu, like the rotate by 90 degrees, add terminal, remove terminal, etc. could be made available via the menu of the window. I personally use these less, but if there is need for them, then we can discuss how they shall be presented on the window.

 

Since this idea was formulating over a long period of time in my head, but by no means lot of tought put into it, I'm very open to discuss the details. And, by no means the only or best solution to improve the Connector Pane UX.

When I add block diagram comments inside a structure, they are often long enough to require several lines.  Since auto-grow is on, I need to stop typing before the comment reaches the edge of the structure, resize the comment to be multi-line, select inside the comment again, and re-start typing.  From then on, the comment word wraps at  my sized width.  Could you make a special character like ctrl-, alt-, or Shift-comment move me to the next line and make the comment that wide, so it word wraps at that width from then on?  While you're at it, could a word-wrapping comment autogrow in height to fit the comment, like a one-line comment auto-grows in width?  Subdiagram comments could use that feature, too.

In a recent version of LabVIEW the height of Unbundle By Name and Bundle By Name elements, Local Variables and Global Variables was standardised to 16 pixels. This was a welcome improvement. (I'm fairly sure that the improvement was suggested by a LabVIEW Idea. I would have liked to link to that idea here but unfortunately I can't find it right now.)

 

The size of Boolean constants is currently 16 pixels (width) x 14 pixels (height). This should be standardised to 16 pixels x 16 pixels. A vertical stack of Boolean constants would better align with a stack of local variables, global variables, or UBN/BBN elements. They would also align better with the default sized LabVIEW grid (16 x 16 grid).

1 (annotated).png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks!

The name of the "Get Date/Time in Seconds” function is misleading. The function should be renamed.

Combined v2.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Details

  • The current name does not make it clear which Date/Time it is going to return. The words "now" or "current" are missing.
  • The "In Seconds" portion is misleading and unnecessary. The function correctly returns a timestamp data type. The timestamp represents a moment in time that is expressed not just in seconds, but also using lots of other time units such as days, hours, minutes, ms, us, ns, etc. I understand that when a timestamp is converted to a DBL, the value represents the fractional number of seconds since the beginning of the epoch, but this is an implementation detail. It should not be part of the name of the function.
  • “Get Date/Time in Seconds” would be a suitable name for a conversion function that takes in a formatted Date/Time string and outputs a DBL that represents the number of seconds since the beginning of the epoch.

Names of equivalent functions in other languages

  • .NET: System.DateTime.Now
  • C++: std::chrono::system_clock::now()
  • Python: datetime.now()

Notice that the equivalent function names contain the word "now" and omit "in seconds".

 

Perhaps the best new name for the function would be “Get Date/Time Now”. This name would be very much in line with the .NET, C++ and Python equivalent function names. This name would earn the "let's not reinvent the wheel" prize.

 

Nevertheless, I would be happy with the following names too:

  • “Get Timestamp Now”
  • “Get Current Date/Time”
  • “Get Current Timestamp”

Notes

  • Changing a primitive name may break VIs that use VI scripting to find or create this node. This is a downside. I believe that in this case the long-term benefits would outweigh the relatively minor annoyance of hopefully relatively few developers having to modify those scripting VIs to use the new primitive name.

I occasionally hide controls on my FP and control their visibility programmatically during the execution of my program. The problem is that if I edit my UI and the control is hidden, it's very easy not to be aware that it's there and to accidentally overlap it, hide it or even move it off the screen.

 

To solve this, I usually try to save the VIs with all the controls visible, but that's not always feasible.


A better solution - LabVIEW should always show hidden controls in edit mode. It should just have some way of differentiating them from visible controls. This mockup shows them as ghosts, but it can also be any other solution:

 

20779iD19E3A04FFDC0A31

 

In run mode, of course, the control would not be shown. This is similar to the black border you get when objects overlap a tab control.

Say you have new errors you want to merge into an existing structure. You have to expand the merge error, then bring the new error to the merge. Here is what I'm proposing.

 

Before.png

Start wiring the new error, then click on the merge error node.

During.png

LabVIEW expands and connects the error wire

After.png

This would also be nice for any expandable node like build array, concatenate strings

BA and Cat.png

 

 

Bonus points idea, but might cause more polarization so don't let the entire idea hinge on this. Clicking on an existing unbroken wire can insert the node.

Bonus.png

The existing UI behavior just wires a new source into an existing wire, which really only breaks the wire. I'm not sure the above behavior would take capabilities away from the user. For build array to work this way, it would have to detect if the singleton was the same type as the array wire you were clicking on. This is a bit more iffy in my mind.

 

When pressing the "Stop" button when your project is loading you get this screen

 

BasvE_0-1704359642069.png

 

It seems that pressing "No" is the fastest way to abort loading but for bigger projects it still tries to load some classes/libraries/vi's which could take a lot of time.

 

I would love to see a way to abort loading the project instantly.