drjdpowell

Here is the Issues lost: https://bitbucket.org/drjdpowell/pq-labview/issues?status=new&status=open I am not actively working on this project, but it might be the case that the PQ dll used by the library needs updating.

Re the main issue, this seems to be my misunderstanding about how Savepoints work (as distinct from BEGIN and ROLLBACK). Here is a relevant discussion. From that discussion, I see I should, instead of "ROLLBACK TO <Savepoint>" I should do "ROLLBACK TO <Savepoint>; RELEASE <Savepoint>;" Issue 22

As an aside, you should look into the Upsert clause, which allows doing INSERT or UPDATE in a single SQL statement. Also, note that you don't need savepoints about a single transaction (all single statements are their own transaction, and either succeed or rollback automatically).

Hi @mwebster, Can you upload an example showing this problem? Something is wrong somewhere, as a Savepoint outside of an open transaction should behave the same as Begin-Rollback, to my understanding.

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.