01-22-2020 02:05 PM
Christian, I may have a fix for this issue, but I'd like for it to get some field testing if possible. Would you be able to run your reproducing test case again with a patched VI Analyzer engine that I send you? If so, what LabVIEW version are you using?
01-22-2020 04:23 PM
Darren, I'd be happy to test it. I'm running 2019 in general but I have 2017 installed if you want to check that instead/as well.
I suspect most of the installations I have are using the latest Service Pack, but if that's important you can go ahead and assume it's true and I'll update if it isn't before testing.
01-22-2020 05:17 PM
Ok, this file is saved in LabVIEW 2019. Backup the following file, then replace it with the one attached to this post:
[LabVIEW 2019]\vi.lib\addons\analyzer\_vianengshared.llb
Perform your tests and tell me if the problem has gone away (and if everything else still looks like it's functioning properly).
01-23-2020 10:48 AM
I did as instructed and replaced the file, then repeated the tests with the same project.
Using the right click menu, the tests (for at least one VI) correctly updated between runs without requiring VIA to be closed.
The same was true for the Tools menu path with Current Project.
As before, 4000 tests executed over 40 VIs.
I'm tempted to say it may have also executed a reasonable chunk faster, but I wasn't really watching the timing for it either now or before, so that's only a feeling.
01-23-2020 11:03 AM
Excellent, if I'm reading your reply correctly it sounds like the issue is solved for you. I plan on submitting the change to LabVIEW 2020. If possible, please continue using the patched LLB I provided and post here if you have any problems along the way.
01-31-2020 12:40 AM
I noticed a weird issue that may be related to this doing some testing on a different computer (without the new LLB). I changed to the new LLB (since I hoped it might be fixed) but still saw the same behaviour:
If I run a set of tests (say, all of them) against a project, and then go back to the VIAn and remove some tests via the checkboxes on the right-hand side, then rerun the tests, I receive results for all of the tests I previously ran (not just the ones in the second selection).
The new LLB does at least make the results new/refreshed, but still runs all of the tests (not just the reduced selection).
01-31-2020 10:38 AM
I was unable to reproduce this behavior. Selections I made on the last page of the VI Analyzer UI (excluding certain tests from certain VIs) were always evident in the generated results.
If you can reliably reproduce this issue, please send me some code and instructions so I can investigate further.
02-01-2020 12:04 AM - edited 02-01-2020 12:06 AM
I've attached a project that shows this issue for me, but you can create your own - it doesn't appear to require a large number of tests/VIs.
Steps are/were as follows:
Edit: when I first reported this (using a different computer) I did not have the ini token you previously mentioned. On this computer, I do - so the ini file token doesn't appear to affect this, nor does the shipping (2019) vs upgraded LLB.
02-04-2020 10:35 AM
Thanks for adding the steps. I was able to reproduce the issue. It's because there's only one VI in your project. The last page of the UI (exclude certain tests on certain VIs) assumes there's more than one VI being analyzed. If you ever put the UI in a situation where that page is showing, but there's only one VI being analyzed (like a project or folder containing only one VI), the last page is ignored. If your project had multiple VIs (or if you analyzed a folder with multiple VIs), the issue would not occur.
In my opinion this is enough of a corner case that it's probably not worth addressing. Let me know if you strongly disagree.
02-04-2020 10:38 AM
Hi Darren,
I'm glad you were able to reproduce this in the case with one VI (and I agree in that case it probably doesn't affect many people) but I originally encountered it with a project of ~100 VIs (I used one in the example for simplicity, since I figured less was better than more when less was sufficient - unlike previously when it seemed a certain number were necessary to trigger the effect).
Do you not see the same effect with more than one VI?