ShaunR

Yes, I've talk to NI and they are looking into it as well, but I thought I talk to the experts here as well

Expert (ɛk.spɛʁ) -> An old drip under pressure

Right - or implement your own in FPGA, which wouldn't be too difficult...

Much more difficult than using a pic as a serial pass-through to just chop the break Not to mention <$10

*********************************** ERROR *************************************

ERROR: 3.1 kernels are not supported! **

Running a 2.4.x or 2.6.x kernel is required to continue this installation

************************************ ERROR ************************************

Thats as far as I got on 12.1 before switching to 11.4.

I don't have a 2009 linux distro (rocking-horse droppings ) so unfortunately cannot try it to see if I get the same problem. All I can say is that 8.5 started ok and even installed everything properly on 11.4.

Perhaps a call to NI?

Thanks Shaun

I tried installing gcc but still it didn't work :-(

I followed this guide line:

1. Goto YaST Control Center → Software → Software Management

2. In search box type gcc then it will show packages

3. Select gcc then accept

4. Then gcc will be installed

//Mike

this is what I did.

1. Goto YaST Control Center → Software → Software Management

2. View → Patterns

3 Select "Base Development" check box.

4. Install.

After that I went to "Search" and typed in "kernel". Selected "kernel source" (which is 3.1 for 12.1 and 2.6.37 for 11.4) and then installed that.

Like I said. I had problems with the NIVisa on 12.1 (which is one of the ones that needed the source and gcc) but no problems on 11.4.

Would you mind telling me how it works ? I need a simple example。

http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/Help-using-invoke-node-Ctrl-Val-Set-with-cluster-elements/td-p/887434

|start byte=0xFF| |second byte = 0x00-0xFE| | third byte = 0x00-0xFE |

Can LabVIEW able to send my 3 bytes protocol above with just one-time sending??

I cant find this vi，where can i find it？

This is probably a case of the blind leading the blind but....

you've got a few errors e.g

gcc Not found in current path*** ERROR: Some required tools are missing or were not found. ***[/CODE]

I got a little further (since I have gcc and the kernel source installed) but then got this error
[code] *********************************** ERROR *************************************               	ERROR: 3.1 kernels are not supported!                    ** Running a 2.4.x or 2.6.x kernel is required to continue this installation. ************************************ ERROR ************************************

So I'm guessing it won't work (properly?) with 12.1. I am just going through installing 11.4 (which uses kernel version 2.6.x).

NB:

These errors were for only the GPIB and the VISA but I'm not going to faff around with seeing which "parts" might work although Labview did run without quitting (version 8.5)

I was hoping you would post this; it will be useful in my next project. Thanks.

Actually this is a slightly older one than I use currently. The latest one passes the errors via a queue to an asynchronous process that then writes the to DB but the main bulk of it is still the same.

wow, you've gome all the way with it. You have given me something else to think about

cheers

Well. I've been around a bit.It's my 3^rd most re-used piece of code. Maybe I should include it as an example in the API library

I totally agree with you about your comments regarding errors, but to me there is far more to logging than that. There can be problems in code that do not result in errors but incorrect results or when you create a new feature or application you want to actively debug it. I think the blog sort of covers that aspect quite well.

On my previous system if we turned on full logging and ran a test the result was a several Mb test file, with lots of useful information, but not stuff that could suitable be placed into a DB, for example we could see all telnet conversations both to UUT & thier replies, or all GPIB conversattions.

We ran our test software in a foreign manufacturing plant and sometimes when there were problems we would ask them to turn logging on (a simple menu option) and get them to send back the log file as we could not debug on the remote executable.

I do the same and insist on result data as well. I think you've just picked up on the error bit because of my last comment (my bad), but previously I did say log file with info, warnings and debug so I think we are on the same page. If the log table is in the same DB as the results then you get them by default when they send the file. A few MB is nothing really in the scheme of things and it makes no difference in performance for a database of couple of GB. Of course, with text files you would really be struggling even with 10s of MB,

As to what you save in the log table, well that's just down to your category partitioning. The sort of info (comms etc) that you describe, for me, would be "debug" and only as and when required. Maybe you would just have an extra category "Comms" since categories are not mutually exclusive, But I would still want errors, warnings and info logged during normal operation and over extremely long periods.

Because you can handle such large data files you can leave error, warning and info logging enabled permanently and just switch in the "debug" for all the low level stuff as and when required.You then get useful things like how often they restarted the machine, what operators were logged in when the errors happened, if there were any warnings before the errors occurred, any alarms emitted etc. And all filterable Of course. Errors should be minimal if the software is working as intended. So it's really info and usage I would primarily be interested in and I request customers send me the DB file every month for the first 6 months so I can see how it is being used/abused and what can be done to improve it. Quality departments love the info too since you are logging calibration and tool-change info over time and they can run data through their 6 sigma software

We're utilizing TDMS for for results, but I really like the idea of SQLite of error/warning/whatever logging. Has anybody tried to tie the two together? I think you can stuff a blob in a TDMS, so you could include your database in the TDMS if you wanted, but that seems a little hacky.

I'm not sure I like the idea of including a database in a database. I don't really see the point since it wouldn't be searchable from the TDMS. Like with most things I prefer to stick with one technology rather than mix, If I were to consider it, I think I would just keep the Sqlite file separate or include the errors/info in the TDMS (SQLite cannot beat TDMS for streaming).

I think the Database idea is great for errors, we did something similar in adding error messages to our test results report and they were imported into our DB wih all the oher results.

However that does not work for general logging of which error loging is only a small subset off

Not sure I quite follow you here.

If you are already using a DB for results, then just adding an error table is a no-brainer, The only difference is the db name that you log the error to. You also get the advantage that you can link a specific row (or test if you like) with one or more errors, info, warnings etc giving you greater granularity.

I think we all have something similar in our toolkit (although probably with not as many interfaces). However, a while ago mine got a face-lift to use a SQLite database instead of text files. The fact that you cannot open it in a text editor is far outweighed by the extra features like being able to filter errors to only show errors, info and/or errors containing certain text. It also means you can have much larger log files since after a program has been in the field a while, text editors struggle to open them. It also makes long term statistical analysis of the files much more agreeable.

I have no access to the main window buttons.

Set the dialogue window to "floating"

No direct calls to a dll. I use this http://lavag.org/files/file/146-opp-push-file/ with the widcomm. If you are having difficulties, then you could try this http://bluetoothinstaller.com/

the device must use the Windows Bluetooth stack.

That's funny. I'm using the Widcomm one.

Maybe you want to watch the video from this new LAVA post and look for the downloads on NI towards the end of the year.

Easy Monitoring from Tablets

If you've got an android, you don't have to wait

While I agree NI isn't a democracy, they do have to cater to their customers and adding or removing features that the majority are asking for (mostly adding) is what keeps customers buying and using LabVIEW, which keeps customers buying hardware.

Nope. It's obsolescence and having to upgrade to get bug fixes that keeps people buying Labview.

Hi,

I connected an instrument (Power meter) through GPIB.

I can see that instrument in MAX. i.e the MAX is showing the GPIB address.

but the same time it says that the device is not responding for *IDE? command.

based on the instrument manual i tried various commands but it is not responding for any command.

any idea what went wrong?

Isnt it "*IDN?" (without quotes)

You may also be forgetting the termination character eg "*IDN?\r", "*IDN?\n" or "*IDN?\r\n"

And, hey, Shaun has an encryption package,

I do?

Hello,

Shaun, stop reading, this is getting OOP-y

Ok I'll shut up then. Obviously completely over my head

I don't use this (yet?) but I feel like it would be better to have your Enqueue VI be polymorphic and have an instance which takes either a 1D array or cluster of strings to facilitate arguments. No precarious parsing and your dequeue always returns two strings, one case and one argument. It seems cleaner. If you need more complex parameters than a string, you could go off the deep end and have the parameter be a variant which is VTD'd by small-footprint helper VIs in specific cases. No muss, no fuss.

Anyone ever tried using explicit parameterization like this?

For reconstitution, I have a separate vi that is basically just a split string with a smaller footprint. This means that I can just cascade the splits to whatever depth is required. I found trying to do it in the actual queue vi meant that you end up either limiting the depth (n outputs), or with array indexing which basically is the same, but with a bigger footprint.

For creating the message, I have just stuck to a string input (the ultimate variant). This has one major benefit over strictly typing and making a polymorphic "translator" in that you can load commands directly from a file (instant scripting). You can create easily maintainable test harnesses (load file then squirt to module) that works for all modules by simply selecting the appropriate file.

My view on polymorphic VI's is that in most cases they basically replicate code, so the "user ease" benefit must be far in excess of the effort and in my case; I don't think it is.I leave that to others to "inherit" from my vis if they want that feature.

Having arrays for inputs is fine on paper, but in reality it is no different. The user still has to create the array and uses concatenate array instead of concatenate string. Arguably he/she doesn't have to add the delimiter, but it's one of those "6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other" since if you just have simple, straight commands, you then have to build an array rather than just type in a string.

Top down and bottom ....

<snip>

Ugh. I hate that term. It's meaningless without clarification. What context are you using it in?

Perhaps start a new thread so as not to derail this one? (although I think we will just end up arguing about symatics).