LabVIEW Idea Exchange

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

The default installation of LabVIEW, along with any associated binaries, should include an encrypted file stored in a strictly restricted location. This file must contain a list of cryptographic hashes for all installed files. The system should verify these hashes regularly, and alert the current session user if any binaries are newly introduced, replaced, modified, or deleted. This represents the minimum expected standard for securing the environment.

Quiztus2_2-1754045229444.png

Currently, when right-clicking a Messenger channel tunnel in LabVIEW, the context menu only offers the option to create a channel reader. However, Messenger channels support multiple writers, so it would be both logical and convenient to include a "Create Channel Writer" option directly in the popup menu.

At present, users must manually insert an element of the channel wire’s type and then create a writer from its output—an unnecessarily cumbersome workaround for a simple task.

This seems like an oversight rather than a technical limitation, and adding this feature would streamline development and improve usability for anyone working with Messenger channels.

At the moment the quick change plugin leaves the cursor where the label was. In order to select the control type, you must move to the list and select the type manually. It would be nice if the window captured the mouse focus and moved the cursor through the items with the scroll wheel. This would make the operation much quicker. An alternative would be to allowing tabbing through the items and use the space bar to select the desired item. Both of these options eliminate the need to aim with the cursor. For the scroll wheel options, bonus points if it returns the cursor to the label position when finished. 

 

ConnerP_0-1753958984893.png

 

 

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

 

I would like the option to connect a control/indicator, such as a Graph, Table and Arrays, to a matching typed DVR reference. 
This would allow the developers to work on large datasets in-place and the connected indicator would reflect that change with out having to pass, essentially, a large copy of the data to the control/indicator. 

The speed and memory efficiency improvements could be huge for large datasets.

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.

 

Since a few years, we have native support for Map and Set in LabVIEW.

How about adding a DataFrame type similar to other programming languages (possible even with a native interaction with Python)?

 

A DataFrame type would be a 2D value where columns can have different datatypes. Currently, one needs to build around this by creating an 1D array of a cluster (or class) type.

Access to the data would be with numerical indexing for the rows and field access (like in a cluster) for the columns.

 

KR, Benjamin

It's hard to believe that this is the first post to request something like this (pun intended), but I couldn't find it after a few queries.

 

The base idea would be that both the static and dynamic connectors used to connect the methods to the owning class shall be defaulting to the owner class, a.k.a. this object in text based languages. The main problem is the use case for refactoring. When moving around methods the class controls and indicators have to be replaced every time. It doesn't matter if I'm moving methods between classes or to interfaces it is the same pain: replace the connectors (with QuickDrop), then change the names to class names, then update the icon, finally move the VI to the new location.

 

I know that this could and maybe is already solved with scripting, but I think the development environment shall grant the option to change the control and indicator to this object that will always default to the owning class, without manual updates. Even the labels could be This in and This out, and replaced in real time with the actual class implementation on the block diagram of the calling VIs.

 

The proposed solution would also get rid of the error telling about the dynamic dispatch controls shall reference the owning class, since it would happen automatically.

For everybody who deals with a lot of different LabVIEW versions it is difficult to handle the versions.

If you forget to select [save for previous], the code will be recompiled to the newest version.

 

There is a new feature to select the expected version in the project manager (started with LV2024). 

But there is no possibility to select a specific version for the development environment itself (eg in the menue [Tools] - [Options] - ...

Providing additional Context Help information on Controls that contains information as to their "type" (Classic, System, Silver, etc.) as well as their font, font-size, and control-type (indicator, ring, enum, etc.) would be useful.  The utility of this is obvious if you have ever had to modify/update an existing GUI and want to maintain the look and feel when adding new controls -- this would allow you to easily see what was previously used for the existing controls on a GUI.  This "verbose" information could possibly be turned on/off as a Tools->Options->Front Panel setting.

For anyone that has used CAD software, you know how much of a timesaver this feature is. It is very similar to quick drop but relies more on graphical selection than keyboard input (although, these shortcuts often allow text entry as well and have a configurable menu).

 

For example, pressing the "S" key in SolidWorks pops up a contextual, configurable menu at the current cursor position that allows you to rapidly click on common operations as well as customized shortcuts.

 

I have my own janky extension to quickdrop that makes a graphical menu present after pressing multiple buttons (ctrl+space, ctrl+q, then one of WASD or a mouse click on the popup .vi front panel), but it would be nice if I didn't have to go through multiple shortcut selections to hit my toolbar-of-target. Said another way, a more extensible quickdrop-like shortcut bar would be nice. Something like the right click and shortcut keypresses for Autodesk Fusion and Solidworks are the inspiration.

Integrating markdown, asciidoc, whatever. This would help eliminate a step for most of us lowly third parties making docs for our software. A built-in browser would be nice, or just opening the doc straight away in a compatible viewer would be fine.

 

Loading the NI website's page for the help doc takes ages. This could also be a way to locally host vi docs and have a built-in browser-like display of help files.

 

I frequently find the context help information not detailed enough and get frustrated waiting for the website to load. If it was a one-stop shop markup-based doc, that's meaningful time saved.

(NOTE: This idea is the opposite of this one, so not the same)

 

The properties page of "boolean array to number" should prominently include the sign extension mode so we don't run into this confusion.

 

altenbach_1-1750952300236.png

 

 

altenbach_0-1750952204508.png

 

 

 

For string controls and indicators please add a vertical alignment option. We have applications where we will programmatically change the font size, which requires a string control/indicator to be sized for the largest option. Since there isn't a vertical alignment option, the string is always aligned to the top and it can make the front panel layout look strange.

 

Other applications have long strings that may be a single line or may be a variable number of multiple lines, but we'd like to be able to center the text vertically. Again, this requires the control/indicator to be sized for the largest option, but all the text is always vertically aligned to the top of the front panel object.

To "reduce friction" in creating subVIs from portions of code, I suggest adding "Create subVI from Selection" to the block diagram contextual menu- rather than only having it in the titlebar menu.

PPLs are a powerful tool in LabVIEW, and when working on larger plug-in based applications, they're almost essential.

 

As a developer, I do my best to not reinvent the wheel. This means building modular libraries for common functionality. Sometimes this includes base classes and interfaces, sometimes this includes functional globals. If I'm calling either of these from a PPL, it's necessary to first put this common code in a PPL too -- otherwise there will be class conflicts or conflicting instances of functional globals.

 

I would love to be able to distribute this common code as a VIPM package to vi.lib so that it's reusable across multiple projects -- however that's simply not possible now. While yes, you can technically put a PPL in vi.lib, you're guaranteed to be met with failure as soon as you build an application that relies on PPLs calling the vi.lib PPLs.

 

There are workarounds to all of this of course, but they all come with compromises, typically maintainability -- such as including a copy of all of your PPLs (and in my case, a library of public VIMs that sits next to each PPL) with every project, while not having access to the common functionality outside of any of these projects.

 

The solution could be as "simple" as this:

  • When PPLs are compiled, they currently expect each dependency to be at an exact relative path.
    • Why not support loading from one of a number of paths similar to, say, how .NET finds DLLs?
      • Search order could be something like: exact relative path, current folder, common LabVIEW folders, and custom (where custom could be defined in build specs)
    • When building a PPL/application that relies on PPLs, if you don't exclude dependencies, this would now allow all of those dependencies to actually find each other.

If we type up a list in a text label we can now (since LabVIEW 2023) right-click on it, select quick change and convert it to a number of different objects (array, enum, boolean etc)...Once you have done however, right-clicking on the result does not offer the quick change option anymore.

 

It would be nice and feel more consistent if the same option was available when right-clicking on the supported objects as well; allowing us to convert those to any of the other options and/or even back to the original list (which would allow you to then edit that list efficiently and then reconvert it). Basically an label/object to object/label quick change, instead of just label to object.

PS. I know there are various quick drop plugins that do parts of this, but this would extend the now in-built function to cover those and more scenarios...

Many times data is generated or transformed using a function or vi with a single output. In those cases the wire name is the one given by the function or VI terminal, but it would far more descriptive if the wire could have a proper name according to is usage in the block diagram. You can attach labels to wires but these are not propagated particularly when used in places like "bundle" or in structures (for, while, etc.). In large diagrams thus it can be difficult sometimes to now what a wire is for.

 

This idea proposes to enable the override of the default name of the wire connected to output terminal to that of the label of the function, in case the label is not empty, for single output function or VI. In a similar fashion to the propagation of labels of constants. This could be automatic (not empty label) or deliberate (for instance, using a tick box in the properties page)

 

This is different from idea Allow-Wire-Labels-to-Dictate-Name-Inheritance-in-Bundles in that it follows the current LabView behavior of the wire name being dependent on labels on constants, and avoids possible conflicts.

 

LabView_idea.png

It would be good if, after adding a custom image to the states (TRUE, FALSE, transitions etc.) or text of of a Boolean control using the Control Editor if there was an option to revert to the standard image rather than having to replace it by overwriting with a second image.

It'd be quite helpful if you could have several search result windows (or tabs) since it's not that uncommon that you e.g. search for some text and want to keep that list of VIs while searching for something else. Especially when the projects get into several thousand VIs it takes a while to do the search, thus i prefer to not do it again ...