drjdpowell

This appears to be a pretty standard "hostile takeover" attempt, complete with all the usual things like a "poison pill" defence, and an appeal to shareholders to set up for a "proxy fight". Noone in the corporate world thinks any less of Emerson for doing a very normal business thing.

The market presumable thinks the offer will be accepted, possibly at a higher price.

Just to second ShawnR's suggestion to look for documentation on the underlying communication protocol. Multiple times I have found poor quality LabVIEW libraries just use better quality communication protocols underneath, and I just implement that protocol with my own library.

I did the exact same thing! Posted my version here: https://github.com/ni/grpc-labview/issues/206 I made a small helper class to allow easier configuration of each Procedure with a name and two message clusters:

NI is working on gRPC and LabVIEW. I am trying to give them feedback on their Github page. In particular, I think they are going the wrong way in trying to create a Scripting-black-box solution rather than a simpler gRPC Library, and that this is a major danger to the project. gRPC looks like it could be important, and we have a stake in making this project successful. If anyone else would like to comment on this, please see https://github.com/ni/grpc-labview/issues/208

Why are you using Finite Samples in a cycle, rather than Continuous Samples?

Your doing it in the UI thread (that would have been my number one guess). Switching threads is one of the few things that can be multi-millisecond expensive. Switch the Call to "any thread". Edit: actually, even a thread switch shouldn't take 40 milliseconds, but give it a try anyway.

Move block is way faster than than that. Can you post an example VI showing how you are calling it?

Exactly. The function can do the approprioate thing, based on there being an upstream error. Ususally that is doing nothing, sometimes it is doing what it would have even if no error, and occasionaly it is something different.

I diagram I made in another conversation, illustrating the issue:

I generally solve it by not forking the reference wire and not acting on it in parallel. It's all in the UI thread anyway so there is no performance advantage to parallel execution.

Actually, BOTH behaviours with or without "ignore errors inside node" set are different from error-chaining the individual subVIs (which is how I would argue stacked Property Node should behave).

One option is to trigger a soft shutdown of your app, then do a reboot a short while latter.

I haven't used them yet, but I thought LabVIEW Interfaces are like LabVIEW Classes, just with no private data.

Yes, the new Interfaces will takeover much of the work previously done with abstract parent classes.

SQLite3.so has no dependencies, so I am suspecting access rights.

Is that not four levels?

Messenger Library is 4 levels, so I answered 3-6, though my more common use of Classes will be 1-3. Though I note that number of levels doesn't necessarily map directly on any meaningful measures of complexity, as it is easy to add additional parent levels that represent only simple capabilities. My top-level Address class in Messenger Library is just "a thing one can send a message to", and primarily defines only a "Send" method. It doesn't even define creation/destruction methods (those are in level two).

Does a Property Node, with multiple Properties set, execute as a single action, without a parallel Property Node executing in the middle? If so, then resetting the Active Plot in the second Property Node in the bottom loop would prevent any race condition.

I have an SQLite logger, yes, and the more expert Users do use it. But even there hard to read error messages are a burden. Especially the poor first line, as teh first line is what appears in the list of log entries, as in the "Error 63" shown here, which was a failure to find a TCP Service (because the service was not running).

I set the VI to Modal inside a Conditional Disable so it applies in a EXE only, which lets me debug in source code while the dialog is open.

I was hoping to get an "easy win" of improving error communication, without the cost of custom code to intercept and translate individual errors into more User-friendly ones. Of course, custom messages is what one should do for the "expected" errors (such as the User not plugging something in, say, or selecting a file of the wrong type), but you can't anticipate more than a small subset of possible errors. I should say my particular use case involves a large set of third-party code that can throw errors (often without error codes!), plus a variety of different categories of "Users", including not just "Operators", but subject-matter experts in the hardware and some of the third-party packages, who need to be able to use error information to debug problems in their areas. I need to be able to present arbitrary errors in a way that is most helpful to them.

If you just need to display a chart in a window, it's easy to do with a simple subVI. The subVI contains nothing but a chart control attached to a subVI terminal. Call the subVI periodically with new data. Open its Front Panel with a VI Server call.

This is a question to ask how people display errors to non-programmer Users. An example of a current Error Mesage that might be displayed to a User of one of my programs is this: The problem I find is that to a many, if not most, Users, this comes across as "Error N ocurred at blah, blah, blah, I'd better report this to the programmer". Their eyes have glazed over at the VI name, long before getting to the useful info that might actually help them fix the problem themselves (like realizing that they haven't pointed to the right folder where the file exists). I tend to get reports like "Error X happened", or even "It didn't work" . This is particularly bad with Error 1172, a .NET exception, which is full of .NET mumbojumbo like "invocation" and "inner exception". I would rather have error dialogs like this: Here, the info useful to the User is directly on the first line, followed by clear description not cluttered by techy-sounding fluff. Details only important to me, the Programmer, are at the back, where I don't care if the User has stopped reading. However, I am not sure how to programatically reorder Error dialogs in this way. The important key phrases such as "File Not Found" are buried in unstructered text. What have other people done?

Are Listener ports affected by this "half-dead" issue? I would have thought this is just and issue of TCP Connections (with a connected remote party) rather than a Listener.