Show processing time when trying to copy folders with Labview

[altenbach]

See if this can give you some ideas....

(Simulation. You need to substitute your copy operations and adjust datatypes as needed)

(just a very rough draft! Probably needs quite a few tweaks)

[thols]

---

@altenbach wrote:...

• Instead of the "clear error", just wire the error to a structure boundary to suppress automatic error handling.

---

Just turn it off and you will never have to create any of those wires:

[DavidHammer]

---

@altenbach wrote:

See if this can give you some ideas....

(Simulation. You need to substitute your copy operations and adjust datatypes as needed)

(just a very rough draft! Probably needs quite a few tweaks)

---

Thank you for your ideas.

I created an example as below.
-I tried to implement what you said as far as I understood.I hope I understood correctly. I couldn't decide whether to use the event structure.

-I don't know if there is a better way to convert -data units.

[altenbach]

Sorry, I am currently not near a computer with LabVIEW (attending GLA summit!), but please use zip when attaching archives. Nobody should be forced to install custom software just to look at attachments!

Yes an event structure should not be used for lengthy processes, it was just a way to avoid the greedy loop. It's the content that counts, not the framing!

[DavidHammer]

---

@altenbach wrote:

Sorry, I am currently not near a computer with LabVIEW (attending GLA summit!), but please use zip when attaching archives. Nobody should be forced to install custom software just to look at attachments!

---

So sorry. It escaped my attention.

[altenbach]

Your code does not make a lot of sense. In the main loop, you are only iterating over file names, so folders are not copied, while before the loop you are recursively going over all files.

Why do you thin you need a 0ms wait. How quickly can you possibly click the button? You havent swapped the input to the subtraction, giving you negative values.

[DavidHammer]

---

@altenbach wrote:

Your code does not make a lot of sense. In the main loop, you are only iterating over file names, so folders are not copied, while before the loop you are recursively going over all files.

Why do you thin you need a 0ms wait. How quickly can you possibly click the button? You havent swapped the input to the subtraction, giving you negative values.

---

-I failed to copy all the folders, if I select only the filenames it copies the files, If I select the folder name the for loop doesn't even work.
-Initially, I need to scan the file with the files in it and check its size.

-Actually, I'd say di to avoid the greedy while loop. I just wanted to understand the difference with 0 ms.

-Yes, you're saying it's not necessary to check the button state very quickly, right?

You havent swapped the input to the subtraction, giving you negative values.

-I don't understand exactly what you want to say here.

[altenbach]

---

@DavidHammer wrote:

---

You havent swapped the input to the subtraction, giving you negative values.

-I don't understand exactly what you want to say here.

---

You calculate "previous tick - current tick" instead of current-previous, giving you a negative elapsed time value.

You could iterate over the recursive file list, calculate the destination path fro each source path, copy each individually, and create folders as needed. Not sure about performance...

[DavidHammer]

---

@altenbach wrote:

---

@DavidHammer wrote:

---

You havent swapped the input to the subtraction, giving you negative values.

-I don't understand exactly what you want to say here.

---

You calculate "previous tick - current tick" instead of current-previous, giving you a negative elapsed time value.

You could iterate over the recursive file list, calculate the destination path fro each source path, copy each individually, and create folders as needed. Not sure about performance...

---

Thanks for your answers. I made the correction as follows. But I stumbled a bit on copying the whole file, but thanks for everything. Let me say that's enough for now.