TestStand 4.1.1 vi search path

[Ryan_ngc]

I have the same trouble, not only with vi's but also dependent sequence files not being found after a distribution.

The FAQ says:

"Along with locating dependent files, the deployment utility also performs processing on sequence files in order to remove absolute paths. Absolute paths that are functional on your development computer may be invalid on the target computer, especially if the base installation directories are different. "

When I launch the top-level sequence after a build it still references those absolute paths, and can't find the files even though they are in the designated search paths.

[trosier]

Ryan - I will tell you what I had to do to over come this problem. I did get a good explanation from Josh however it did not remove the fact that my deployment was broken because of this TestStand behavior. I went through every VI in every sequence and made sure it was saved with a relative path. There are no absolute paths in my sequences at all. It was cumbersome but it is a once and done process. The other parameter I set was the search directories in TestStand that contain all of my VIs in every sequence. So I have a top level directory set and then I also have the sub-directories check box checked. The other big thing to remember, which is tough in my case with multiple developers and source code control, is to not have any duplicate VI names within your search directories. Using these three rules I have found that the deployment build process is a lot cleaner and more reliable. The duplicate file name VI practice is a bad one to use anyway. But it happens and that is one thing I like about the analysis the deployment utility does by detecting them.

[Ryan_ngc]

Trosier, thanks for your posting. It would be tedious since I'm picking up a large project that contains many many... many references. If I was the original developer and knowingly / mistakenly used absolutes then it might be a suitable punishment. Did NI say anything about this as a known issue and fixing it in a future release?

[trosier]

From speaking wih NI I was told that they would fill out a bug report and the TestStand along with the Labview developers would have to collaborate on what kind of fix or enhancement could be invoked although they were unsure about when this would be fixed.

[James_Grey]

"If I was the original developer and knowingly / mistakenly used absolutes then it might be a suitable punishment."

I'm not familiar with the issue at hand, but if you use find-and-replace, it should be pretty quick work to change to relative paths.