ShaunR

I had a funny one today in LV 2009. I had a sequence engine running and one other vi running (mainly keeping image references in memory so I could stop and start the engine). The sequence engine would only execute (by that I mean its state machine would only go from state to the next) if the diagram was in the foreground or I moved the mouse over menu items (in the main menu) if the front panel was in the foreground. How the hell do you debug that?

If you can find my callbacks example (originally posted in the old forum) it does exactly this. A callback is installed to any invoked vi and fires when a control or indicator changes. When a control changes, the callback is invoked automagically, sending the control refnum as a parameter of the event. It is received in the event structure in the main vi and various information about the control (text, value, image) is displayed. This is all that's in the callback:

Your big project is for your mother? I'm working on justifying something like this

Ok.I think I'm getting the gist of it. You will notice that the supplier has broken the direct tie (RMS WS and TCS WS) between the master test system and the test layers (as opposed to just the incoming via your c# server). This is because it enables them to completely manage their inter-process comms without limitation. They can not only interpret requests from the Master System and re-interpret in a form that the subsystems can understand , but can also use a far greater vocabulary for inter process comms and filter/re-interpret back to the master. I'm not quite sure what the difference is between the "Executive" and the "test" in terms of your labview program since the test vi will have a user interface and it seems only one test vi is used by each the "Executive" so the purpose behind "Main" isn't clear to me (generalised diagram?). I could understand it if the "Executive" could invoke or choose between multiple "tests" because it would basically be a plug-in architecture. But soldiering on..... I would have used a similar topology as your supplier with what you describe, but the interface layer would have been Labview . The interface would have basically been a client/server with a few special case statements. On the one side (RMS WS) it would include an dynamic loader which could take the test name from the master and invoke the "Executive" for that test, configure it and tell it things like Stop, exit, pause run etc (if it is something I have written or execute and close it if it is a 3rd party exe). Basically invoke the test and pass on the parameters from the master. On the other side(TCS WS) I would have a mechanism (probably a queue) that receives info (status, results, progress, errors etc) from the "Executive" (can be one or more), filters out local information and repackages or retransmits information destined for the master. How this would be realised is really dependent on how much control you have over the other parts of the system. If one of the tests is just an executable, you may be able to use DDE or perhaps it has a config file you can modify before executing it, but you are at the mercy of the forethought of the originator. If you have written the code, you can make it really slick.

I've just upgraded to LV2009 and........ Is it just me or does it make 8.6.1 look like a paraplegic sloth? It seems far quicker to load, a lot more responsive and debug execution seems brisk.

He must have got burned recently...lol. Just think of how cool it would have been to have said "what? like this one?" and plonked a document in his lap That was how it was at my place. Not any more, he, he. My templates are even on the intranet now. When the nuts are on the block (or whatever the female equivalent is) he/she who has the document wins! Other team members caught on pretty quick that my response to a customers' "that's not what I asked for/want/meant" was a black and white section in the SOW that they had signed. Closely followed by "would you like me to quote you for that feature". Internally I wasn't quite as harsh, but it is extremely good leverage for extending timescales if they don't like what they see because of poor communication. After all, you have proof that you did as asked/described and they signed it! Ooooh. I sound like a tyrant/quality engineer...lol. But seriously, My code reflects my documents rather than documents reflecting my code. That was the way I was trained and it has stood me in good stead ever since. I have an answer (in writing) for all the ney sayers and 80% of the documentation before I start coding. And it means I can offload the user manual (another thing I hate doing) to a Technical Writer .

250 GB SSD for about $1000 is about 2 man days ($ for $). Ya just have to convince the powers that be it will take you more than 8 days to to find a solution and code around the drive limitation (and throw in also that even then it may not work.....risk ) and highlight it will cut your delivery timescale by 2 weeks. Be creative.

There are techniques for handling agile specifications (google for iterative and incremental life-cycles). The only point I was trying to make was that software should be designed (which is actually your documentation) then coded, rather than coded then documented. It doesn't really matter whether your an old crusty like me and use word or a super "with it" and use a UML tool. You can usually get away with "growing" software if you are a team of one, but add another person or two, then it is imperative to document first. This is especially true if you have to interface to other disciplines. The other "human" aspect is that documenting is arguably the least stimulating task for a programmer so you are much less likely to do it at the end of a project than at the beginning. A tried and tested method to "manage" your customers/users/consumers if they are always changing the goal posts is to get them to sign up for an initial spec (Statement Of work) and if they want to change it tell them to make the changes to the document and you will quote accordingly, or, if it isn't chargeable (e.g. internal customer), to tell them the impact on the delivery date. This causes them not only to go away and think about what they want and put it in writing, but also forces them to justify the changes (to the signatories) and filters out non-imperative demands. After all..... They want everything for nothing n'est pas? Can't fault that. Good balance and will lead to straight forward, easy to understand code. I also strongly agree with last bit (i.e no hiding state selections in sub vis).

Indeed. I have nothing against keeping data in shift registers. What's using clusters or not got to do with design patters? I don't mind people looking at my code as long as they have read the spec first! That will tell them not only the design pattern, but how it works, why it works and above all which vi's do what. Please don't tell me you are of the impression that labview code is self explanatory with a few comments. Indeed. The globals and file access is for shared data (product numbers, limits, images etc). The only information a state machine needs to know (generally, not entirely) is what state next to execute and, as I think I said, if data is dependent on previous states, then they can probably be serialised in a single state. I wouldn't (for example) have individual states for create image, acquire image and process image and pass the image around. Instead I would have a single state (take image?) that uses a functional global to retrieve a pre-initialised image (blank image), acquire the image, process it then put the image back in the functional global before moving on to another state. That way the state machine represents the functional operations (move motor in, open gripper, dispense part, close gripper, take image, move motor out) rather than the discrete steps required to achieve the function (get motor position, move motor, stop motor, check motor position, get gripper number, open gripper, check gripper is open etc, etc).

Ditto. In fact, my implementations of state machines have only 1 piece of data passed from case to case; the next state to execute (a single enum). Anything else is either gleaned from functional globals or from files. No clusters whatsoever are used to transfer info from one state to another. If a particular state is reliant on previous state information, then it is highly probable that they can be serially linked the good old fashioned way.

Let me get this right in my limited stack. Correct me where I've got the wrong end of the stick. You have a Master Test System (that is written by a 3rd party..not yourself )that manages a whole raft of tests including yours. This system communicates its desires (Test No./Name, number of times to execute, pass/fail criteria) that your "Executive" should execute via some sort of "translation" interface. Your executive goes away and tests the sub-system and then returns the results back to the Master System. A discrete test that the Master system must wait for. Where the Master System knows all and your sub-test just takes parameters and returns results. This is how it appears after reading and is fairly straightforward except what you mean by "Executive". Many people use "Executive" and "Sequencer" synonymously. I tend to see the difference as an "Executive" manages "sequences" soin my mind, your Master Test System would be an "Executive" and your sub-test(s) would be a sequence(s) and by that definition, you only ever have one "Executive". But the above seems a little oversimplified (I only get a sense of this) since anyone going to the lengths of incorporating multiple languages and defining XML interfaces to sub-tests, probably have a more flexible system in mind. Certainly in similar systems I have worked on, the "sub-test" defined in the Master Test System is an entry point into a number of sub-tests. So in your example the entry point would be "RF Tests" and there would be "sub-sub-tests" like Output Power,Carrier Drift, Power Density etc. The question here is where the partitioning is and how simple you want the configuration of the "Executive/Master Test System" to be. Do you still want all the parameters defined in the Master System (huge amount of configuration information for EVERY test), or a simplified alias system where parameters are handled locally by each test. The latter is the preferred topology in production environments where different tests are maintained/designed by different teams, keeping the "Executive" simple and distributing maintenance workload across teams.

Sounds like a good excuse to get a SSD.

Seems a bit arse about face to me. Call me old fashioned, but..... I start with a word document (detailed design spec) and define flow/transition diagrams for each state machine then code from that with plenty of comments and references back to the original spec. If you want you can copy and paste the transition diagrams into the vi, but I don't bother since anyone modifying it should at least be able to read a spec.

We are using the labview OCR on a machine at the moment. As long as you have high contrast and train each character/number for several lighting levels (or flood the area with strong lighting to counter ambient); it is quite robust.

Change the rotate to a logical shift.

QUOTE (crelf @ Jun 5 2009, 06:07 PM) Semantics. If we want to be technically correct, I think I could have said "Binary Distributions". But the sense was correct. I would (tentatively) suggest that your "distributions" come under the heading "Tools for programmers" anyway. That is a small market in comparison to "compiled and configured" executable/binary distributions, especially in an environment which has historically been very open with source contributions.

I'd use a different colour than turquoise!

QUOTE (hooovahh @ Jun 2 2009, 10:46 PM) It means there are too few smiley's on this forum

Post the DLL/source and test harness.

QUOTE (ShaunR @ Jun 3 2009, 03:36 PM) Hwew's some examples in Delphi, C++, Java and VB (they all have wrappers around sendinput). some examples are for notepad, but the method works on any windows program. Delphi VB C++ Java

This what your after? http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms646310.aspx

QUOTE (PaulG. @ Jun 2 2009, 09:28 PM) I know what you mean. I guess it depends on what is meant by verbose. add r2, r3, r4 is less verbose than (say) MyEnormouslyLongResultName := MyEnormouslyLongVariableName + MySecondEnormouslyLongVariableName. Thats why pictures are better :beer: + :camera: =

QUOTE (jlokanis @ Jun 2 2009, 06:35 PM) Like this one QUOTE (JCFC @ Jun 2 2009, 05:36 AM) Hi to all I read this in Slashdot: http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/31/1423203' rel='nofollow' target="_blank">Comparing the Size, Speed, and Dependability of Programming Languages I have a question: Can Labview beat those Programming Languages?, How Labview perform doing that tasks? Interesting. Most of the languages I've never heard of and quite a few common ones missing. I would like to have seen Assembly in that mix since its one of the least verbose and fastest, so I guess it would be close to the "ideal". I think the title is a bit misleading though. since really it is a test of the compiler optimization rather than language.

QUOTE (PaulG. @ Jun 1 2009, 05:16 PM) This also works with DAQ tasks .

QUOTE (jdunham @ Jun 1 2009, 07:27 PM) Thanks for identifying the exact location (the PC I wrote the reply on didn't have Labview so couldn't check). QUOTE Currently I am using 7.0 (so that may be an issue), but I will head over to my other computer and check out 8.0. I've been using it since LV version 2.x so it will be in 7.0.....somewhere (foolow JD's path). It really is all you need (unless you are going to go to parallel comms) and works on all windows versions.