infinitenothing

I'm considering distributing a wrapper application that can download updates from the internet or internal network. I'm thinking that, so the user doesn't have to think too much about file locations or windows explorer, maybe just have the update in the form of a PPL and then async launch the top level. Has anyone had success going down this route? It would probably be a good idea to secure the PPL by either signing it or making sure to download it using SSL.

Hash digest? That's just another equal sign to change right? Or they could license it on a virtual machine appliance and distribute the appliance right? Or install it on a server, wrap it in a TCP interface and make it accessible over the network. Go through my links. If you really want to protect something it has to be running on your physically secured hardware. Everything else is just obfuscation. If you just want to make it challenging to hack, then you've probably done enough by removing the FP and BD and using the TPLAT. It's hard to give more specific advice without understanding the code better.

The bad news is that DRM is fundamentally flawed. A dedicated hacker would probably modify your DLL/object code and "wire" a true constant to your case structure that enables the functionality. Your best DRM is probably a team of rabid lawyers . Have you seen the third party licensing toolkit? Regarding sensitive string, no, that's never totally safe.

That VI always returns an array of all zeros. If I use a feedback node as shown it's 10% faster than my first example:

I've never done performance testing but I've always used rotate and replace to avoid the build array. It should be very easy to make a malleable VI out of it to further reduce block diagram clutter. For example:

Low resilience code Fragile?

You can search for the model numbers here to get code: http://www.ni.com/downloads/instrument-drivers/

Is there a way to check if we're in the customer experience feedback program?

I noticed no significant change in bugginess. I'm 100% developing in 2017, mostly targeting cRIO developing on Win10

That's an interesting technology. I wonder why I haven't heard about it more. I'm curious what sort of performance you are trying to improve. Real time usually only improves the worst case scenario sometimes at the cost of the average performance. It's tangential but you might be interested in NI's hypervisor

Last time I had to switch to passive mode and disable fall back.

https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-Development-Best/LabVIEW-Data-Container/ta-p/3511022

Here's my experiment with reading, writing, and setting a "right sized" buffer. Now I'm getting 700 for the write, 300 for the "latency" regardless of if either is in sync or async mode

Sorry to the OP if this is going too far off topic but I wanted to run this test to help (maybe?) resolve the difference between async and sync Setting async or sync here makes very little difference in how long VISA write takes. It always takes a little more than 1000ms.

I just got the same thing. I changed to active mode and it worked.

Does anyone have the original video? The link just crashes instantly "Adobe Connect Add-in has stopped working".

We all have those. This is one reason why people are afraid of xcontrols. I think there's some code base that everyone's afraid to touch: https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/XControl-quot-Data-Change-quot-Event-only-fires-when-different/td-p/418552/page/2

See, whenever I have a bug in my code where "it works on my machine" I just build a debug version of the executable, transfer it to the computer in question, set some breakpoints and discover that there's some unexpected combination of things that I never accounted for. It's then usually just a matter of putting in a retry or upstream validation and the bug is solved. I really wish the AEs could do something like that. I feel like it would solve 70% of my problems in 20% of the time. I feel like the other method of making random modifications to my code so the bug magically goes away really does us both a disservice because the bug is going to come back for no reason for both me and a few other customers.

I've been a little more active in filing service requests this year. I have: 3 open 1 RMA 3 CARs 12 created in the last 12 months Thanks NI for giving me a resource to help me through the tough spots. I'm never leaving SSP if I can avoid it. Thanks everyone else for all the CARs you generate before I have to generate my own reproduce case.

Are you using async VIs? I find it unlikely you have some refnums getting autocleaned unless you do. You have a case where the com works and one where it doesn't. Try and figure out what intermediary step breaks the functionality. Can you read one byte at a time until you get the termination character? Maybe someone with more telnet experience can weigh in. I'm not clear why you wouldn't be getting an error. In debugging you have to check everything (error codes, refnum IDs, counters of how often a given subVI runs, etc) to see the smoke to tell you where the fire is. You might have to modify VIs you received from outside sources.

I hate the silent mutation. I wrote this idea a while back: https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-Idea-Exchange/Deleting-an-enum-element-from-a-type-def-should-cause-a-broken/idi-p/1763158 I'm curious what actions specifically default the value. What version are you using? 2014 helped but I know there's still some mutation going on with the case structures now.

Has anyone seen Network stream socket error -1967390704? I see this error every now and then on various computers. LabVIEW hangs in the task bar and I have to for quit and then I have to restart the NI PSP service and everything is OK. I have a service ticket open but we're sort of running out of ideas for how to reproduce the problem or on what data we can gather when I see this error.

For follow up, I was able to create a batch file: netsh advfirewall firewall add rule name=%1 dir=in program=%2 action=allow and in my installer I have these command line arguments "Allow MyApp" "[INSTALLDIR]MyApp.exe"

I've always used Zebra designer to convert my logos to ZPL.

I keep coming to computers and I guess the user didn't approve the exception or something because they're getting an error 56 when the app opens a TCP connection. I'm looking for ways to avoid this. Some ideas: Autoapprove the exception as part of installation Is there a way to keep prompting them until they approve the exception or close the app Maybe a command line I can send them if they say they are seeing error 56?