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

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].

Programmers that advocate "Ad-hoc reuse" are cut from the same cloth as...

I mostly agree. I'm okay with it, if it's only but a step in the path to true reuse.

My oldest software that hasn't become "vapourware" seems to be the "windows_api_1.0.llb".

Great stuff! I still use a VI from that llb on the odd occasion

"Data mining" just isn't a phrase I use for programming at all. I don't see software as data - more a tool for manipulating data.

In the context of the conversation we're having, "data mining" is completely valid, semantically speaking.

"Ad-hoc reuse" is a phrase made up by script kiddies because they can't write proper code at all and have to steal others'. It isn't a thing..

This made me LOL. For more than one reason

If you meant by "data mining" the process of taking an unmodified chunk of an old project and use it "by reference", i,e, place the VIs on diagrams or link via code interface nodes...

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.

​That's really sad.   It probably means that it wasn't modular enough to be re-purposed or adapt to changing requirements.

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.

I think it's lying that reuse is 98% though

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

I have software that does the bits of it that are interesting such as coverage...

Nice work - I like this!

Complexity or nesting depth is a poor indication of that...

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.

Then there is reuse that can't really be measured like copying an existing library, or whole project from some old code (data mining), where here reuse is between 0% and 100% but code can't really detect the exact amount.

Right. Mined-from-previous-projects is one thing, formally-released-components is another. But yes, they're still both reuse.

I should probably force myself to get some free time and release my reuse metric, unless VISTA is going open source 

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...

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

Oh and my favorite piece of software I wish I could download is the Infinite Jukebox.  Ever get a song in your head you couldn't get out?  Try listening it for hours with no obvious start or end.

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>

please re-upload part1 and part3

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

BTW you can keep any of the NI NDA related tidbits, they are probably about as exciting as the LV2015 beta features

Ha! That actually made me laugh out loud  ...but for reasons you may not know 

If someone has some valuable insight or a new and better way of doing something I would hope they would share that information in the public domain.  If they would like the honor of first presenting the idea in a closed forum that seems perfectly reasonable.

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.

The CLA has little business or personal value for me so I have not pursued it... I guess what irks me is the notion that I would not be allowed to even view the CLA material...

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/