LabVIEW Idea Exchange

Community Browser
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Post an idea
 When you align a control that has increment/decrement buttons to other objects on the front panel that do not have them, LabVIEW aligns the buttons with the edge of the other controls.  The align objects command should ignore the increment decrement buttons and align the border of the control with the borders of the other controls.
 
 align.jpg
 
Workaround:  Hide Inc/Dec Buttons, align objects, Show Inc/Dec buttons.  However not as convenient.

Currently the quickest way to open a typedef is right-click >> Open Type Def.

 

Holding down a modifier key (Ctrl, Alt, Shift, or a combination of these) while double-clicking on an existing typedef constant or terminal (Block Diagram) or control/indicator (Front Panel) would be quicker.

Combined.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

  • The gesture could open the private data definition (ctl file) of a class when double-clicking on an object constant, terminal, or control/indicator.
  • Opening the typedef for inspection/modification is one of the most common actions when working with typedef clusters and enums.

I may want to use it 0-5% of the time.

However, I want to scroll through cases in a structure 95% of the time.

 

Making the 5% use case the default (ctrl-scroll) was a bad design choice.

Reverse it before it's ingrained.

 

(ctrl-shift-scroll is frankly awkward and imagine will become painful eventually)

 

 

The LabVIEW Icon Editor plays a central role in creating graphical icons for VIs.

Yet, it has some quirks that would be great to address, such as fixing a few issues affecting users on Linux.

 

Because the Icon Editor is written in LabVIEW, many LabVIEW users could actually help fix issues and suggest improvements more directly, if the Icon Editor source code were hosted on GitHub. This would allow people to submit issues and feature requests (even in the form of Pull Requests with the fixed/improved code).

By transitioning the Icon Editor to GitHub, NI could establish a process that allows for the incorporation of community improvements into the official LabVIEW releases.  This would improve quality and allow for more and better feedback from the community.

Note that NI has historically shared the Icon Editor code with each new LabVIEW release (here in the NI’s LabVIEW discussion forums).  However, there hasn’t ever been an effective mechanism for the community to contribute back their fixes and feature suggestions.  So, hopefully this would only take incremental effort for exponential gains!

I would like it if LabVIEW offered the option of creating Block-Diagram-Only VIs. These VIs would be just like regular VIs, but without the Front Panel window.

 

BD-Only VIs would be beneficial because:

  • They would remove the need to spend a few seconds tidying up the Front Panel of every VI. In a large application most VIs do not have a user-facing GUI. Most of the time tidying up the FP is "busywork" that slows down the developer. (The alternative: creating BD code without ever looking at the FP results in the FP being a mess, which is even more undesirable than wasting a few seconds to tidy the FP up.)
  • They would reduce the developer workload, thus making developers faster.
  • They would reduce the surface-area of the codebase.
  • They would replicate functionality that exists in all text-based languages where creating functions or methods does not involve "touching" a GUI.

BD-Only VIs would be my default choice for small, low-level VIs that serve as subVIs deep inside my application. For example, does a VI that takes "a", "b", and "c" as inputs, and outputs "3D Distance = sqrt(a^2 + b^2 + c^2)", really need a GUI (the Front Panel)? Do most class accessor VIs really need a GUI (the Front Panel)?

 

Notes

  • I realise that implementing BD-Only VIs is not trivial. But I believe that the benefits would far outweigh the implementation cost.
  • The Connector Pane functionality would have to be implemented in the Block Diagram. This has already been suggested by CaseyM in a comment to his popular Make the default behavior of opening a VI open ONLY the block diagram idea: "Hell, you could even add the connector pane wiring functionality to the BD - then I'd have even less reason to go to the FP on most VIs."
  • Steen Schmidt has aluded to the need for BD-Only VIs in a comment from 2014 to the popular Allow ONLY the Block Diagram to be opened Without Front Panel idea: "But this idea of Jack's here is about being able to have the BD open only, and leave the FP closed. Not about having VIs without FP at all (that discussion is a totally separate one, which we will have hammered out in due time :-)."
  • I would be happy if, for technical reasons, BD-Only VIs would use a dedicated file extension, for example ".vibd", similar to how malleable VIs use the dedicated file extension ".vim".
  • It would be ideal if BD-only VIs could be converted to regular VIs, and vice-versa. But I would be happy if, for technical reasons, this is not possible or too difficult to implement.

Thanks!

 

 

  It would be very usefull to know which VIs are still running.

   aaaa.png

"Despite the awesomeness of LabVIEW classes, the class constant icon size takes up too much space on the block diagram. Reducing the size of this box would be a helpful improvement.

I suggest minimizing the white space around the icon and reducing the depth of the box:

 

Quiztus2_1-1741874481209.png

 

Quiztus2_2-1741874846447.png

 

I just realized that when creating an interface you cannot create property node folders.

 

You can see from the pictures below that option is missing from interfaces.

 

second.pngfirst.png

 

You can also see from that screenshot that it is possible to have property folders in interfaces and they work just fine. You have to edit the xml to do that, but it works. So it is implemented, it is just removed from the IDE.

 

Now I talked to Darren and he seemed to think the original reasoning was "Well property nodes are for storing things in the class private data and there is no private data with an interface, so you don't need them." I can't really argue with that logic, however, there are times when an existing class uses a property node and you want to create an interface that includes that method. For example you may have multiple instruments that have a VISA ref property. You currently can't create an interface with that "write VISA ref" VI (without editing the xml.) If you create a method with the same name/conn pane and it is not in a property folder, the compiler complains. Now you could just go back and edit the original class and remove the property node and just use a regular method. However then you break every piece of calling code that is using a property node.

 

Here is a use case, which I think is fairly common - it happens to me a lot:


I inherit some code. It is using some particular instrument (Oscope, DMM doesn't matter) They want to support another similar instrument (maybe newer version of the DMM).

 

The instrument code is wrapped in a class. Great. As a first step, I can refactor. I can create an interface that has all the same methods and make the code rely on the interface. If it is a class wrapped in a DQMH module, all I have to do is replace the object in the Shift register with the interface and somewhere set the concrete class in the initialize. It all works exactly the same as before, but now I have an interface.

 

Then I create another class that implements that interface and add some logic to pick which one - some kind of factory. Done. I've made very minimal changes to the existing code and it now supports a different instrument. This is the holy grail of OOP. I create a new class and just inject it and everything works.

 

Not so fast. NI has decided I shouldn't be able to do this if the class uses a property node (oh no!) why? I should be able to have 2 classes that both have the same property. Sure the data's not getting stored in the interface, but what does that matter?

 

It does matter to the compiler. If I want to do what I proposed above and the original developer used property nodes anywhere this doesn't work directly. I have to either do some xml hack on the interface or I have to replace all the property nodes in the calling code with subvi calls and then go edit the class and remove the property folders. Why?

 

It seems like all that is needed is enabling the right click menu, because if you manually edit the xml, it all works. That is already implemented for classes, so I imagine the fix would be rather simple.

As part of everyday class development, I often want to track down everywhere where certain class data is being used. Would be convenient if there was a shortcut for doing this...perhaps something like:

 

_carl_1-1678141878195.png

 

 

Recently LabVIEW has added the following feature: When creating a new wire, double-clicking creates a terminal. This can be an indicator or a control, depending on what was selected. If the wire was started from a data sink (a structure tunnel or a subVI or node input terminal), holding down the Ctrl key while double-clicking creates a constant. This is very useful and saves time. Kudos!

 

When working with cluster wires, it would be useful if an Unbundle By Name node could be created by:

1. Start creating a new cluster wire or wire branch

2. Hold down a modifier key (Ctrl, Alt, Shift, or a combination thereof) and double-click

 

Step 1: Start creating a cluster wire

1 (edited).png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 2 - current behaviour: double-clicking creates a terminal. This is useful. Holding modifier keys down (Ctrl, Alt, Shift) does not alter the behaviour.

2 (edited).png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 2 - desired behaviour: Holding modifier key + double-click creates Unbundle By Name node

3 (edited).png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

  • Creating UBN nodes is a common, repetitive action when working with clusters. This gesture would save time.
  • The screenshots above show a cluster wire being created starting from a control terminal. The gesture should, of course, work regardless of which object the wire branch was started from (e.g. tunnel, subVI output terminal, etc).
  • Perhaps the idea can be expanded to creating Bundle By Name nodes. Perhaps one modifier key (e.g. Ctrl) would create a UBN node, while another key (e.g. Alt) would create a BBN node.

Check out this nice readable diagram:

labels.png

Whoa there pardner, not so fast. The control reference labeled "Numeric 1" is actually linked to the "Numeric 3" control. And the property node labeled "Numeric 2" is actually linked to the "Numeric 1" control. Etc., etc.

 

I see no reason to change the labels of Control References and Implicit Property/Invoke Nodes. If you need to document them beyond their label, attach a free label to them. We don't allow changing the labels of subVIs, so the precedent has been set. For the sake of diagram readability, we shouldn't allow changing labels of these objects either. 

The smaller footprint of the Local Variables in 2010 has increased usability of the IDE and readability of the LabVIEW language. Another node that could benefit from a smaller footprint is the User Event Ref Constant.

 

Below is some conceptual artwork on what a smaller footprint might look like. Feel free to post more concepts!

 

21658iE20B431D386A4E45

Currently, having one misconnected wire breaks the entire wire tree and pressing ctrl+b wipes out everything. Poof!

 

In the vast majority of (my) scenarios, a broken wire is due to a small problem isolated to one branch so it does not make sense to drag the entire wire from the source to all valid destinations down with it and break everything in the process.

 

Here is a simplified example to illustrate the problem (see picture).

 

 

In (A) we have mostly good code. If we add a wire as shown, that wire (and VI!) must break of course because such a wire would not make any sense.

 

However, it does not make sense to also break the good, existing branches of the wire (the cluster in this case), but that is exactly what we get today as shown in (B). If we press ctrl+b at this point, all broken wires will disappear and we would have to start wiring from scratch (or undo, of course :)). Even the context help and tip strip is misleading, because it claims that the "source is a cluster ... the sink is long ...", while that is only true for 25% of the sinks in this case!

 

What we should get instead is shown in part (C). Only the tiny bad wire branch should break, leaving all the good connection untouched. Pressing ctrl+b at this point should only remove the short bad wire.

 

The entire wire should only be broken in cases where nothing is OK along its entire length, e.g. if there is no source or if it connects to two different data sources, for example.

 

Summary: Good parts of a wire should remain intact if only some of the branches are bad. Wires that go to a destination compatible with the wire source should not break.

 

(Similarly, for dangling wires, the red X should be on the broken branch, not on the good source wire as it is today)

 

Implementation of this idea would significantly help in isolating the location of the problem. Currently, one small mistake will potentially cover the entire diagram with broken wires going in all directions and finding the actual problem is much more difficult than it should be.

Class data is painful, if not impossible, to properly probe when debugging LabVIEW code.

 

It doesn't need to be this way. Every other programming language I've worked with allows viewing this type of data when debugging.

 

Currently, by default, you only see probe data based on the wire's edit-time class definition, not it's actual runtime class instance. It would save me weeks (literally) a year if I could simply place a probe on a class wire and view the internal class data of the runtime class, including all levels of inheritance.

 

I realize it's not a small ask since the probe GUI would need to be dynamic (as data type/GUI elements, not just values, would need to be updated when probe is hit.)

I don't use conditional disable structures very often...but when I do, I've always found it a bit annoying that I need to pull up the documentation in order to check what the available options are, and expected string formatting. For symbols with a defined list, why not expose these options through drop-downs?

 

_carl_0-1634052992681.png

 

When using the Rearrange Cases window with a Type Specialization Structure, the case list only shows either Declined, Accepted or Ignored. This makes it difficult to know what cases are being reordered. Similar situations occur with a numeric case selector (just a list of numbers) and event cases (dynamic events with the duplicate default wire labels).

 

rearrange-subdiagram.png

This idea is to add the subdiagram label of a case next to each entry in the case list. This would add some context to each item, and make rearranging cases quicker and less error prone.

 

rearrange-subdiagram-labels.png

Alternately (or in addition to the above) would be the ability to preview the contents of the selected case / subdiagram, much like the preview when selecting a dynamic dispatch VI in a class hierarchy. This would be useful for cases with no subdiagram label, or in the case of the type specialization structure, allow visual comparisons of which case should be evaluated in which order.

 

rearrange-subdiagram-labels-preview.png

Once in a while I complain about font issues in general (here, here, or here), but one of the really weird things are the font sizes as used in LabVIEW.

 

The font dialog lists them as units of pt, but for some reason they are quite different in size from the same sizes in any other applications (browser, word, etc.). LabVIEW also shows other problems, for example tahoma 14, 15 all look exactly the same... why??

 

Here is a side-by-side comparison of a wordpad document and a LabVIEW panel. Each line is configured for the indicated font size.

 

As you can easily see, LabVIEW is the exception. Any other applications I tried agrees with the left panel.

 

Idea -->LabVIEW should also standardize here!

 

 

 

The QControl Toolkit is a fantastic library of tools for developing reusable UI components. I think they are a great alternative to XControls. Not only does the QControl Toolkit provide me the framework for developing my own QControls, but it also ships with some fully functional QControls, my favorite probably being the tree with checkboxes.

 

I think QControls are useful enough for all LabVIEW users that they should be part of the LabVIEW core product instead of an add-on toolkit.

It would be useful if a "Keep Text Only" (a.k.a. "Paste Values" or "Use Destination Style") option existed when pasting text into control and indicator labels, captions, or values.

 

Example

Screenshot 1: A GUI element (control or indicator) with a custom, non-default label and value (contents) font style.

1 (edited).png

 

 

 

 

 

 

Screenshot 2: The text "Hello World" was copied (Ctrl + C) from Notepad and pasted (Ctrl + V) in the middle of the label. The newly pasted text is inserted using the default font (Application Font, 15 pt, black). There is no option to paste using the destination font style. The developer now has to waste a few seconds reconfiguring the font. The same result is obtained whenever the text is copied from an external (non-LabVIEW) application, regardless of the application (Notepad, Microsoft Word, Excel).

2.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Screenshot 3: The same situation occurs when pasting into a string indicator.

Combined 3 and 4.png

 

 

 

Screenshot 4: In Microsoft Word, it is possible to select the "Keep Text Only" option when pasting text. In the screenshot below, notice how "Hello World" text from the second row obeys the destination style when it is pasted into the first row. A similar functionality exists in Microsoft Excel and is named "Paste Values".

6 (edited).png

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

  • The current behaviour, where the text is pasted using the default font style, can be useful in many (maybe most) situations. I am not asking for the current behaviour to be removed. But it would be useful to have the option to select between the two behaviours.
  • When the text is copied from LabVIEW, the pasted text maintains its source formatting style. This can be useful, but again, it would be useful to be able to select "Keep Text Only" (a.k.a. "Paste Values" or "Use Destination Style").

Thanks!