crelf

I've always thought of us here, in the LAVA community, as members of a global independent without-physical-barriers user group. We don't all need to be in the same place to share knowledge, ideas and a little fun, and some of the most insightful and important knowledge I've gained in my career has come from me being a member in this user group right here. Wouldn't it be great for the user group, and all its members, to get a little more love for everything that you've all done here? That's why I'm asking you to take two minutes to head on over to the 5th Annual LUGnut Awards page and nominate LAVA. I'm not going to tell you to nominate us under any particular category, or if you should suggest an addition category to NI, but I'd really appreciate it if you could help all of, together, get a little more recognition for AFAIK an important user group that has arguably done more to shape the independent LabVIEW community that any other resource.

The LabVIEWWiki has a collection of these, compiled from a lot of different sources. Unfortunately, it's down right now, but you can browse from an archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20150531121321/http://labviewwiki.org/LabVIEW_configuration_file

I'd be wary of making a fully customer solution on your own. There are already good resources that can help you deploy and manage systems (and their components), so you can keep control of your test sequences, support files, drivers, etc, without having to design that stuff up front. Ultimately, this isn't a "test" challenge, it's an IT challenge, so I strongly suggest you engage with your company's IT department and ask how they would do it. FWIW: Microsoft System Center is my solution of choice - you can manage systems across multiple sites/domains/companies, group them as like-types, push software updates (sequences, drivers, OS patches, etc), and it gives you a traceable environment so you can audit what system has what, with history (important if you get a recall or a batch of parts coming back for warranty repair).

Looking for a LabVIEW or TestStand contractor for development work or consultancy? I'm available! I'm certified, have a ton of experience, and have very reasonable rates - check out my LinkedIn profile and ping me if you're interested!

Great intro presented by hooovahh at our local user group meeting today: https://decibel.ni.com/content/docs/DOC-46897 Brian Hoover XNodes Samsung.zip

I wasn't quite sure which category to post this in: I know guys like Jack and Jon have been looking into some of the visualization capabilities of other languages and how to extend the LabVIEW IDE with them - check out this cool dependency visualization tool Jon put together: http://www.labviewcraftsmen.com/blog/labview-class-dependency-viewer

So, how did you get on? Did you get what you were looking for?

Don't mark up NI hardware - NI doesn't like it when you do that. They prefer you to have a relationship with them (partner) where they can give you a discount and you sell the HW to the end-customer at lost outside.

With the load option as 0x48, that means your Sub.vi is going to have to be set for shared clone reentrant execution, so I'd say you'll get [3,6,9].

I mostly agree. I'm okay with it, if it's only but a step in the path to true reuse. Great stuff! I still use a VI from that llb on the odd occasion

In the context of the conversation we're having, "data mining" is completely valid, semantically speaking. This made me LOL. For more than one reason

I don't know about hooovahh, but that's not what I meant by mining. Well, not really anyway. Mining, to me, is half way between the "by reference" technique and the formally-released component. It's "hey, this is useful enough to modularize a little for this next project that I'm working on" without doing the formal redesign for ruse process. We have several stages that mined chunks go through before they get to the formally-released stage.

Oh, it was modular enough, it just wasn't aligned enough with our core businesses anymore (the screenshots I shared were of components, there was a top-level framework and UI experience that tied everything together). And a lot of the features had appeared in others' tools, so we left it where it was. LOL, yeah I was wondering who'd be the first to call that out. So yes, the project in this example was, indeed, 98% reuse. Only because I threw together a bunch on internal reuse library and OpenG VIs on an empty block diagram Nice work - I like this! Interesting you mention that: I've had people ask me in the past about what level of complexity and/or how many GOBs that they should be aiming for - which misses the point entirely. They're relative, and that's why I insisted in having the histograms in there - you're not looking for absolute values, you're looking for out-liers. And yes, some of these out-liers can be logically explained away. Broken VIs et al are quantitative attributes, complexity et al are qualitative. Right. Mined-from-previous-projects is one thing, formally-released-components is another. But yes, they're still both reuse. Open source, I doubt it. But... if someone were to release a framework (like ShaunR has), we could probably release a plug-in or two...

I was wading through an old SCC repo today, and stumbled upon some of our old tools - the ones that existed before VI Analyzer, execution trace toolkits, complexity metrics, Requirements Gateway, et al. Here's a few screenshots for those that have been in the LabVIEW world long enough to remember the VISTA offerings from V I Engineering, in the days of old - enjoy a trip down memory lane!

We're looking for a Business Development Manager. Think you've got the right stuff? Join the VI family! https://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/65604086?trk=vsrp_jobs_res_name&trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A4186423671438293337816%2CVSRPtargetId%3A65604086%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary

We're looking for a Test Software and Integration Engineer. Think you've got the right stuff? Join the VI family! https://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/64695184?trk=vsrp_jobs_res_name&trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A4186423671438293337816%2CVSRPtargetId%3A64695184%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary

Well that's kinda cool... http://www.banggood.com/DSO068-DIY-Oscilloscope-Kit-With-Digital-Storage-Frequency-Meter-ATmega64-AVR-Microcontrol-p-981017.html

Got my tickets - see y'all there

OpenG licensing discussion split off to https://lavag.org/topic/18995-keeping-track-of-licenses-of-openg-components

That site is addicting. Although it seems to stop playing tracks if the window is minimized, or if I go to a different browser tab. This almost blew my mind: http://labs.echonest.com/Uploader/index.html?trid=TRQDXXM13AFAB66B3F

<facepalm>

Fixed. I've uploaded it to youTube as one video.

Ha! That actually made me laugh out loud ...but for reasons you may not know I think that's reasonable. And it describes the current state well. If anyone wants to present to the world, they can (and should!) If they want to present in a closed forum of their peers, they can at the CLA summit. Having the restriction of being a CLA better guarantees that the audience *are* your peers. Sure, there are plenty of people that aren't CLAs that are peers, but there are many more that aren't. This is the only control NI can really have over making sure the people in the room are peers, and I think that's important. That said, I don't think I'm against the CLA summit presentations moving toward a TED-style open release, and it's a concept that I think deserves more thought. Of course, that may push some presenters (for all the reasons already mentioned) and/or some sweet juicyness underground (one presentation at the recent US summit comes to mind that was super juicy, and would never go public). It's off topic, but I'll add it here: honestly, I *like* the presentations I've seen at the summits I've attended, but it's the other things (being-there-and-talking-with-peers) that makes it worth it for me.

Sounds to me like the CLA would, indeed, have value to you.

I know this isn't a TestStand forum, but I really liked this article from Rowdy Dave. Especially "...regardless of how much faith you have for a particular tool, keeping an open mind to the fact that there may be better tools out there to use in certain contexts is a healthy state of mind to have." http://davidpcl.com/2014/10/11/learning-to-love-teststand/