LabVIEW Idea Exchange

One of the quickest (and easiest to forget) methods to improve performance of your VI is to disable debugging.  It requires a trip down the VI properties to get there, however.  I propose adding a button on the BD alongside the other debugging buttons to Disable and Enable Debugging.  

The current implementation of script nodes (formula, mathscript, etc.) is a bit unwieldy. We have to find a delicate balance between node size and content. (too small and we need to constantly scroll the text code. Too big and it is difficult to wire around it and fit it into the rest of the g code.)

My suggestion is that script nodes on the diagram look just like e.g. call library nodes (or possibly express VIs). Double-clicking them would open a separate editor window that floats above the code. Near the top we have a growable area where we can define the connector names, inputs and outputs  (variable name, datatype, etc) and below we have a nice code editor window similar to the current mathscript node, just comfortably big (e.g. like notepad)! At the bottom there could even be extra tools, e.g. like import from text file, save to text file, etc.

Typically the node would be collapsed into an icon but the script window can be left open during editing and debugging.

This is one case where breaking out of the confines of the 2D diagram would be helpful. The current formula nodes just don't really belong directly on a diagram. Nobody want to compose and edit text in an area the size of an old cellphone screen.

This is just a very rough Idea. The details would need to be worked out further....

My front panels are typically large tab controls so most of the FP design and editing takes place on tabs.

In this scenario we lose significant usability, for example:

• We cannot double click on empty space to create a free label
• We cannot see the alignment grid.
• ...

Many of the property accessor VI creation scripting is currently hard coded, or not easily changeable. There might be some conventions around how to name a property accessor, or about the usage of the error handling case structure inside the accessors. It would be nice, if there was a user settable option for these.

The things that I have to change often:

• The read VI to Get, the Write VI to Set
• Front panel controls and indicators to the default style
• Removal of the error handling case structure
• Renaming the Error in (no error) to error in (this might be solved by the global ini setting though)
• Organizing the labels to the left for controls and right for indicators on the block diagram
• Cleaning up the front panel, with the Ctrl+U shortcut, while there is a scripting code in the quick drop to arrange both the front panel and the block diagram, by default Ctrl+F

To fix most of these, I modified the scripting library, for all the templates and the global defaults containing the name for read and write VIs.

It would also be nice if we could override the scripting class as a whole, in order to customize the end result, without needing to go over trough VI again.

This LV typedef for the Waveform Graph property Cursor List is missing Line Width and Line Style! This is probably a solution to the mystery behind another post Show Attributes Selections I made earlier today. In order to completely define our Cursor List properly with one Property Node, those two elements must be part of this public typedef.

Parallelisation of loops is a great thing in LabView that offers a lot of possibilities and it's very easy to implement. In opposite to this debugging can drive you crazy regularly. A typical situation for me is that there are two loops in parallel whereby the first waits for user input (and handles it) and a second one cycles all the time doing some other stuff.

Assumed that the one with the user event handler needs to be debugged I place a break-point on a good place. When the execution stops there, I usually want to go step by step through the code. The problem is now the 2nd loop: because it is running in parallel the execution pointer jumps always between the two loops. I have to step through each function of both loops even that I only interested in the first one.

This becomes very annoying, confusing and time consuming if there is a lot of code in the 2nd loop, if the diagram becomes larger at all and if the highlight mode is activated.

To avoid this I suggest to show optional elements for debugging for each loop. With those elements I could decide if I only want to step through the code of the first loop while the second is executed normally (no highlighting, no single step).

Current situation:

improved functionality:

HABF?

An acronym for one of my favorite Spolskyisms. Great article, read it.

Background

When you discover what you consider to be a bug in LabVIEW's IDE or language, it's a difficult process to report the bug and track the bug's status as new LabVIEW editions debut. This idea addresses the transparency and facilitation of this process, and is meant to appeal to both those who create LabVIEW and those who use LabVIEW.

Problems with Current Issue Tracking Platform

"Platform" is a generous term for the current reporting and tracking process:

1. The issue reporting procedure is undocumented - few seem to know how to report issues, fewer know how to track documented issues
2. Issue tracking status is largely monitored by a squad of Dedicated Volunteer Bug Scrapers
3. Duplication of effort (for users, AE's, and R&D) is probable since there is not a centralized, searchable repository
4. Relies on unreliable methods including email, FTP uploads, phone conversations, forums...

Comparing LabVIEW Issue Tracking and Feature Tracking Platforms

Before the Idea Exchange, there was the Product Suggestion Center (PSC). What's that, you ask? It's a hole in the internet you threw your good Ideas into.  The Idea Exchange revolutionized Feature Suggestions by introducing a platform that allows an unprecedented level of public brainstorming and symbiotic discussions between R&D and customers. Further, we can watch Ideas flow from inception to implementation.

I want to see an analogue for Issue Tracking.

Proposed Solution

A web-based platform with the following capabilities:

1. Allows users to interactively search a known bug database. Knowing the status of a bug (not yet reported, pending fix for next release, already fixed in new release...) will minimize duplicated effort
2. Allow embedded video screen captures (such as Jing)
3. Allow uploaded files that demonstrate reproduceable issues
4. Allow different "Access Levels" for different bug types. View and Modify permissions should be settable based on User ID, User Group, etc... (Some types of bugs should not be public)
5. Allow different access levels for content within one bug report. For instance, a customer may want a bug report to be public and searchable, yet attach Private Access Level to proprietary uploads.
6. Allow collaborative involvement for adding content to Bug Reports, where any member can upload additional information (given they have Modify Access Level privileges)
7. The Homepage of the Issue Tracker should be accessible and visible through ni.com (maybe IDE too, such as a GSW link)
8. A more detailed Bugfix Report for each LabVIEW debut (cryptic subject lines on the current Bugfix List is not helpful)
9. Specific fields such as Related Bug Reports and Related Forum Posts that allow easily-identifiable cross-referencing.
10. An email-based alert system, letting you know when the status or content changes in bug reports of interest ()
11. Same username and logon as the Forums
12. Bonus: Visible download links to patches and other bug-related minutiae

Additional Thoughts

• I have used the Issue Tracking platform used in Betas, and the exposed featureset is too lacking to fulfill the spirit of this Idea
• I realize the initial and ongoing investment for such a system is high compared to most Ideas on the Exchange. Both issue tracking and economics are sensitive issues, but the resultant increase in product stability and customer confidence makes the discussion worth having.
• Just to clarify, a perfectly acceptable (and desirable) action is to choose an established issue-tracking service provider (perhaps one of NI's current web service providers carries an acceptable solution?), not create this behemoth in-house.

(Picture first spotted on Breakpoint)

Generally: you are voting for a platform that eases the burden of Issue Reporting, additionally offering a means of Issue Tracking.

My suggestions are neither concrete nor comprehensive: please voice further suggestions, requirements, or criticisms in the Comments Section!

This is similar to the idea about moving items in the connector pane and is an extension of it for any input or output on the block diagram -

Often, you connect a wire to a wrong input or output. Today, fixing it requires wiring to the new location and manually deleting the old piece of wire. The only exception is two-input functions with both inputs already wired, where you have a keyboard shortcut for swapping the wires. 

A much more natural and general method would be this - if you use the wiring tool on a wire source or sink and then on another, the wires should be swapped (or if there's only one wire, it should be moved).

In this example I wired the 7 into the wrong input and I want to move it one input down, so I:

1. Click the top input. This "grabs" the wire, so to speak.

2. Click the bottom input. This moves the grabbed wire to that input.