06-22-2009 03:32 PM
But I don't see how, or when, or where.
I hope I'm just doing something incorrectly. My situation is :
Dev System has Dev Suite, using TS 4.2 and LV 8.6.1
Target system has TS 4.2 Base deployment engine, LV 8.6.1 std runtime
@ Dev System (in TS Seq Ed)
'Deploy Files from TS Workspace File' checked
In 'LV Options' on Distributed Files :
'Check for Broken VIs During Analysis' checked
'Check for Broken VIs After Build' checked
'Remove Unused VI Components' checked
A Program Item for the UI executable
'Create Installer' checked, with directories specified
No drivers or engines selected
Copy the resulting Vol 1 directory tree to my flash drive.
@ The target system (again, has TS 4.2 base deployment, LV 8.6.1 std RTE)
'Error loading step 'xxxxx' of sequence 'MainSequence' in file 'SuperDuperSpiffyCoolTS.seq'.
The prototype of VI '<path to vi>' changed.
The prototype needs to be updated before executing the VI.
To update the protytpe, open the Specify Module dialog
Failed to load a required step's associated module. [Error Code: -17600]
I can fix this by running the 'programmatic_reload.seq' TS sequence from NI on the installed SuperDuperSpiffyCoolTS.seq on the target machince, and everything functions as expected after that.
So where are my VI prototypes being changed? As part of the deploy step?
Thanks for any thoughts/idea/help
Tom McManus
Solved! Go to Solution.
06-22-2009 03:41 PM
Hi,
What was the path to your VI, was its relative or absolute?
Regards
Ray Farmer
06-22-2009 03:57 PM
Ray -
The path was absolute - 'C:\Program Files\$MY_DIR\$LV_FILES_DIR\$ANOTHER_SUBDIR\<VI name>.vi
06-23-2009 01:14 AM
Thomas
Can you please post the sequence file, the VI and its subVIs reported in the error.
Thank you
Regards
Anand Jain
National Instruments
06-23-2009 10:32 AM
Anand -
I can't post the entirety of it, but I managed to reproduce the behaviour with the attached.
I've included a workspace, project, 1 sequence file that calls 1 LV VI, with 1 custom control. I've also attached the deployment config I used to build the installer, although some of the default pathnames probably will not work (%My Documents% != %Your Documents%)
This behaves the same way - I build it into an installer using Deploy TestStand System, install it on my target, and I get the same 'prototype changed' error as in the 'real' sequence/VI set.
Thanks again for any help
Tom
06-23-2009 03:56 PM
Hi,
The problem appears to be your type define Cal_Files_typedef.ctl. In the deployed files, it is longer a Type Def.
Which is way you have to reload the prototype
You might have to disconect this if it is.
Regards
Ray Farmer
06-23-2009 04:08 PM
Hi,
The problems is defiantly that the TypeDef has been disconnected and removed. its not deployed in the SupportVI folder.
Regards
Ray Farmer
06-23-2009 07:10 PM
Hi Tom,
I believe you are seeing this behavior because you have the "Remove Unused VI Components" option checked in the LabVIEW VI Options dialog box. If you uncheck this option, your deployment will build properly and you will not see this error on your target machine.
I tested your attached files with the "Remove Unused VI Components" option checked and reproduced the error but was unable to reproduce the error with the option unchecked.
Please test this workaround to see if it behaves properly on your end as well. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! We'll work on correcting this in a future release of TestStand.
06-24-2009 10:20 AM - edited 06-24-2009 10:21 AM
OK, the problem is explained and a workaround found between Ray and Manooch.
Ray, you're right - the SupportVIs folder doesn't contain everything it presumably should.
Manooch, you're right, the 'Remove Unused VIs' appears to be the setting that causes that.
Attached are screen shots of the SupportVIs folder where one build has 'Removed Unused VIs,' and the other does not, with no other changes to the deploment config. (Sorry I couldn't just do a folder diff - I got tired of fighting our diff tool.)
Manooch, do you hypothesize that the TS deployment engine with that option selected is incorrectly deciding whether something is an unused VI?
Thanks again for everyone's help.
Tom
06-24-2009 05:50 PM
Hi Tom,
Yes, I do believe that is what's happening. This was reported to R&D (#176525) for further investigation. Thank you for bringing this to our attention Tom!