Jump to content
News about the LabVIEW Wiki! Read more... ×

LogMAN

Members
  • Content Count

    320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

LogMAN last won the day on September 7

LogMAN had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

69

1 Follower

About LogMAN

  • Rank
    Extremely Active
  • Birthday 04/06/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Germany
  • Interests
    Books, DVDs, Computer, LabVIEW

LabVIEW Information

  • Version
    LabVIEW 2015
  • Since
    2008

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. LogMAN

    The State of OpenG (is OpenG Dead?)

    You can use git-svn to make your dreams come true (and nobody will know) ? https://git-scm.com/docs/git-svn
  2. LogMAN

    The State of OpenG (is OpenG Dead?)

    I agree. It just needs to be more visible to users (i.e. by putting "Downloads" in the main navigation bar next to "Leaderbord") It also brings us back to this poll
  3. LogMAN

    The State of OpenG (is OpenG Dead?)

    I agree to what @ShaunR said, but let me add to it: The library is not dead, because it is still functional and very useful - especially for new developers as mentioned earlier. The project, however, is dead. As you correctly pointed out: Technically anyone could fork the project (on whatever platform - SourceForge / GitHub / BitBucket - you name it). Development could even continue under a new name (probably even the same?). Yet the number of licenses being used right now is impossible to maintain, even for experienced developers. OpenG is also tightly coupled with lots of services (i.e. NI and VIPM link to the official repository on SourceForge). To my understanding (although I don't have facts on this), the lack of response in the main repository is the reason to why libraries like MGI were found in the first place. Just look at the bug tracker https://sourceforge.net/p/opengtoolkit/bugs/ This is also not the first time we discussed the (possible) future of OpenG. Here is a thread from two years ago: The complexity of the main repository (i.e. the folder structure) also sets the bar very high for novice contributors: https://sourceforge.net/projects/opengtoolkit/files/ And let's not forget the difficulties in comparing VI revisions in general. All things considered, the project is not a simple task anyone could just pick up and get going. Lot's of things need to be considered, which requires lots of experience in LV. Of course, most experienced developers have no interest in contributing to the project if it involves lots of administrative tasks on top of their regular job. Maybe a shared library like OpenG is not the right solution for LV. A simple place to share VIs might be easier to manage and contribute to in the long run.
  4. LogMAN

    The State of OpenG (is OpenG Dead?)

    We used the OpenG library a long time ago, when LabVIEW was still new to us and we could leverage the power of OpenG to accelerate our development (between LV6.1 and LV2009). This is in my opinion still the strongest point of that library - it provides new developers (or teams) with lots of useful functions at the cost of dependencies. We have since walked away from it due to incomprehensible copyrights, lack of updates (although it is very stable) and generally because we used few functions to begin with (i.e. Fit FP to largest decoration, filter arrays and some string manipulation). At some point the dependencies mattered more than the benefits. What we needed was rebuild in our own library, removing all dependencies from OpenG. If the OpenG library were to be cleaned up, just removing functions is not a good solution because it breaks compatibility for anyone who depends on it. On the other hand, dependencies between the libraries can easily be removed. For example, there is no need for OpenG String to depend on OpenG Error anymore. Instead OpenG String could be updated to remove the dependency (using only native LV functions) and still keep OpenG Error in VIPM. OpenG Error on the other hand is technically unnecessary nowadays (as pointed out by @smithd above). This library can be archived (while keeping it in VIPM). Here is what we do with our libraries when they become obsolete: Remove obsolete VIs from the palette (but keep them in the vi.lib) Change icons and documentation to highlight obsolete VIs (similar to how NI does it, by adding red color to the icon - the more the better) Explain in the documentation why the VI is obsolete and how to replace it Add replacement code to the block diagram of the VI Remove password protection Enable inlining if possible That way, when you come across obsolete VIs, you can simply use the "Inline SubVI" command to replace it: https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/Inline-subvi/m-p/1279086/highlight/true#M532443 Of course, sometimes changes may destroy the block diagram of the calling VI, which is why those VIs have password protection removed, allowing the developer to inline the VI manually.
  5. Please share ? Amen. I was working on a nasty bug for the past few days as well. The source code looked fine, but the application didn't do what it was supposed to do (or so I thought). As it turns out the executable did exactly what it was supposed to do. And I was looking at the latest code, testing old software... Reminder: 1) Always include und update the version number in your executables (and configuration data if possible)! 2) Work with the source code you used to make the executable! 3) If you are experienced enough to skip points 1 and 2, see points 1 and 2!
  6. LogMAN

    How to delete phantom controls from a TypeDef

    Yes, at least since 7.1, maybe earlier.
  7. LogMAN

    LAVA Server Maintenance This Weekend (11\03\18)

    Sorry, my bad. I didn't see the "Something went wrong" message, thought we were talking about the "Optional Profile Information".
  8. LogMAN

    LAVA Server Maintenance This Weekend (11\03\18)

    This is awesome! Thanks Michael I see the same notification using regular login (email + pw). Caching doesn't seem to be the issue. There are likely some new parameters which weren't available in the previous version. Edit: Here is a capture of the requested settings (it says "optional" but if you click "Skip this step" it will continue requesting info): Update: Pressing "Dismiss" on the notification seems to work for me
  9. LogMAN

    LabVIEW and windows authentication

    Are you looking for something like this? https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/api/wincred/nf-wincred-creduipromptforwindowscredentialsa
  10. LogMAN

    VI Icon in Linux illegible

    Here is a KB from NI on this subject: https://knowledge.ni.com/KnowledgeArticleDetails?id=kA00Z000000P7qjSAC
  11. LogMAN

    VI Icon in Linux illegible

    Which font do you use? On Windows we have "Small Fonts" which is the only readable one. Something similar should exist on Linux.
  12. If anyone is interested in finding incorrectly connected Constructors automatically, here is a VI that will do that for you: It's not very fast, but it does its job. The result is a list of VIs with the total number of Constructor Nodes found and the number of Constructor Nodes where the first terminal ("new reference") isn't connected. This is an indirect solution because the offending terminal officially doesn't exist (not accessible via scripting).
  13. Thanks for reporting @_Mike_ Turns out the terminal adjusts to the object type (object or enum). In your case the Constructor is for an enum type, so it actually returns an enum instead of a reference. Here is another example: This is the corresponding definition according to Visual Studio: Very interesting behavior indeed.
  14. @Darren Would you be interested in adding another detail to the CAR? Just for fun I went to see if I can break other nodes and actually got strange behavior from the Call Library Function Node in a very similar way (using LV2017). You can connect the "path" terminals, even if the option "Specify path on diagram" is not checked. I understand that this is probably a design choice to prevent wires from vanishing when unchecking this option and it doesn't do any harm, but the wire should break. Unfortunately, the output wire doesn't break initially: Notice: I just placed the node and connected the wires. The options dialog is open to show the checkbox is actually not checked. Here is what I get after pressing the "OK" button on the dialog (you don't have to change any settings for this to work). You can see the wire is now broken, as it should be: This is only a cosmetic problem because the function breaks as soon as you press the "OK" button. The behavior is strange nonetheless.
  15. Thanks everyone! It's good to know I'm not (yet) going insane Sorry for not mentioning how reproduce the issue in the first place. I suppose one reason this never occurs to anyone is because we all start wiring from the Constructor Node for obvious reasons, except sometimes we don't. Awesome, thanks for sharing! I'll inform my team to keep this in mind.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.