[LabVIEW Feature Report] Breakpoint is duplicated when adding a structure

[Jacobson-ni]

I would rather the breakpoint not be duplicated and just put on the wire connected to the outer terminal of the tunnel that is cerated. That's what I would like but I can't think of a good reason of why that should be the case other than that's the behavior I would personally like to see. Unless someone has a good arguement of why it should be one or the other I would say "feature".

Now one reason why probes may behave differently is that the probe itself is a separate object on the block diagram. It also doesn't inherit from GObject which I just learned and is kind of interesting.

Edit: Before any comments come in I don't have any power at all to change this so convincing me won't get anything changed.

[natasftw]

You've offered a lot of complaint as to it being duplicated.  But, I haven't seen you suggest what you think is the more rational behavior and explain this.  Can you please do so?

You keep mentioning probes as if this is a justified argument.  Fair.  Show me the property node for probes.  If it doesn't exist, you're not showing us an instance of a property not being duplicated.  You'd want to find a property that isn't being copied to make this argument.

There's really only a few options:

Duplicate all the properties which results in a breakpoint on both sides

Always place the breakpoint on the outside

Always place the breakpoint on the inside

Remove the breakpoint entirely

Do I think the developers spent a great deal of time rationalizing which to use in advance?  I doubt it.  So, after the fact we can rationalize in a way they likely didn't.  Doing so, we see two groups there: do the same thing to both, make a choice to one side.  I'd stay away from the second simply because there isn't a rational reason to choose one side over the other.  At the time the structure is added, both make equal sense. 

In the other group, we can point out the same effort is required to clear one breakpoint or add a new one.  But, I'd prefer have an extra breakpoint in place reminding me to remove it during the next edit to losing the breakpoint entirely.  Between those two, the one makes slightly more sense.

In the end, this is a bit of a silly argument.  We've all spent more time thinking about this and typing out a response than it took you to clear the breakpoint.  Given how infrequently you'll run into this, the time we've spent in this thread has taken more time than all of the times you'd have to clear this breakpoint combined.

I look forward to hearing your inside/outside rationalization.

[X.]

My expectation would be that the breakpoint remains on the side of the structure in which it happens to be when the structure is drawn.

In general, the breakpoint will be outside, but I can imagine situations where I would prefer to include it into the structure.

Next Gen seems to opt for kicking the breakpoint outside of the structure drawn (no duplication).

BTW, I was not complaining but simply pointing an oddity, in the hope that some good ideas could come out of it. I am aware that the mere idea of tossing ideas around or pointing inconsistencies (real or perceived) is not the cup of tea of many. The good news is that they don't have to take part in the discussion. But they also can express their irritation and feelings. What a great world we are living in...

[natasftw]

If your intent isn't to sound as if you're complaining, you should take a moment before you hit send on your replies.

"I would argue that it is an undesirable feature at the very least, comparable to the annoying"

"the headache"

"Don't duplicate things unless requested by the user?

They manage to do it for probes."

Either very pointed language or borderline condescending things don't make you come off as someone looking to discuss or merely point out an oddity.  It makes it sound as if you don't only want it be viewed as an oddity, you want people to completely agree with you that it is an "annoyance" and treat it as entirely unreasonable.

As many "odditites" as you find, let's take a look at what would be required to implement your proposed fix.  As it stands, the breakpoint exists on the wire rather than at any location on the wire.  This would have to change.  It wouldn't be as easy as change out breakpoint logic and add probe logic.  While that would eliminate it as a property, the problem would still exist where it chooses where to add the probe.  You'd need to create something to store the location of the breakpoint.

In your opinion, would that be a worthwhile use of R&D time to make those kinds of changes for this oddity?  Do you believe the time invested would be something that affects a wide range of users?  Would it even impact a small range of users often?  If not, why get so testy when people ask for your opinion on a fix?

[X.]

I hear you, but you have to take my word for it that I am not complaining or being condescendant. I have also no hope to influence NI's R&D one way or another, unless I'd transform this post into an IE one, which I won't, since Next Gen seems to be going in the right direction on that topic (at least in my opinion).