Michael Aivaliotis

At a high level, I'm taking an array of variant data and trying to convert it to a variant cluster using the openg variant tools. However, I'm getting a low level error, and not sure why. I'm using the "Array to VCluster__ogtk.vi". Now the variant array has 997 elements. Could this be the reason? Is there a limit?

Quote

 

Error:

Error 116 occurred at Flattened String To Variant in Array of VData to VCluster__ogtk.vi->Array to VCluster__ogtk.vi->Untitled 9.vi

Possible reason(s):

LabVIEW:  Unflatten or byte stream read operation failed due to corrupt, unexpected, or truncated data.

 

I've attached the LabVIEW 2014 VI with the data as a constant so you can run it yourself. You'll need the OpenG variant tools installed.

Untitled 9.vi

I'm blind. Right.

I guess I'm trying to figure out the advantage of this programing method vs just using the "set variant attribute" primitive. I just want to add or update an attribute value. Not necessarily read it or access it for any reason. The primitive adds the attribute if it's missing anyway.

In the attached image found in the LabVIEW examples, you can see the code on the right. It shows how to add the attribute if it's not found. My question is why is the code on the outside of the IPE and not in the False case, on the inside?

Please try again to see if it's fixed.

you don't work for NI anymore?

Don't use open-source libraries at all in your project if this is one of the project requirements.

Thanks for the tip about the speedup site. I'll try that.

There must be CPU cycles consumed where LabVIEW is purposefully advancing the GIF, one frame at a time. So a larger sized GIF or one with a significant color depth will be slower.

Is it possible to control the speed of animated GIFs in LabVIEW UIs? It seems that the speed of the animation is slower when placed on a LabVIEW UI.

I've decided to switch the LabVIEW General forum back to a simple discussion forum layout rather that the question and answer style. Perhaps if IPS decides in the future to add back the old capability where you can have a discussion style but still mark the correct answer, then I may switch to that. Until then. I'll just leave it alone.

On 5/22/2016 at 1:36 AM, Yair said:

Maybe you should take it up with this guy? Or this guy?

That was over 5 years ago. Always means less than 5 years.

But seriously, those posts you link to are referring to the CR downloads. Which you can still download without logging in, BTW. The NI forum complaint is referring to forum post downloads. That's always (more than 5 years) been like that.

Now that I think about it. I'm not sure why the CR area doesn't require login to download. That doesn't make sense. I might have to change that.

So what's the problem? You always needed an account to download stuff. That's not new.

I think creating new accounts is working as evidence by a steady flow of new registrations.

Are you the one naming the files? Why not create a folder structure and naming convention that does not require searching? A predictable naming strategy will allow you to locate the file based on the pre-designed naming algorithm. I have no idea if you can control the naming but just wanted to suggest this.

@Neil Pate I think what you're doing is fine. I've used that strategy as well. I think you can enhance the design by adding a globally registrable message that can notify a process that the config has changed and that it can perform a certain action based on that.

The question is, why does the process care about the change. Because if it's an action-engine then won't the process get the new config whenever it happens to read\need the global data again? I think that's the thing you need to look at. For example, the process has a UI that displays Units and the units have changed in the config so that must be reflected on the screen. So then it might be registered for a global user event called: "Update UI". Or it could be called "Config Changed". Then the process must do the appropriate thing. Where the data comes from is secondary.

Another approach I use involves lvoop. I create a configuration class that contains one or more DVRs. Any other class that needs the configuration data contains the configuration class.

I fixed the issue. Please try again.

1 hour ago, Jordan Kuehn said:

Is it possible to have the thread author choose?

no

So is what percentage of the overall code is LabVIEW and how many active LabVIEW developers do you have?

Well, see Google is starting to do this because they want to "fix the web". There is nothing seriously broken with LAVA. it's as @ShaunR points out. Less secure because of the outdated TLS 1.0. The problem lies with the web server OS that LAVA runs on. So it's nothing I can quickly fix with my intervention.

However, I'm aware of the situation. It's on my mind. I'm trying to figure out what modules and software layers need to change on the server, who can make the change, and how much will it cost me.

So what we have is better than no https. But definitely not up to snuff.

Never heard of it. Seems like a proprietary system. So you guys have a lot of PLC code?

As I mentioned at the start. We can't have the old system.

I'm not married to any one method. Just getting feedback. Vote at the poll up top to give your opinion.

Just want to give an update that I think IPS support fixed our missing images issue. Let me know if you notice other posts with missing images because of the upgrade.

Actually, that blip at the end is due to the new forum layout. I think it's better understood now, how to create an account in the new layout. Onboarding is easier now.

Or it could be a new wave of spammers...

1 hour ago, CopperD said:

I have been waiting for this "fundamental redesign" and it doesn't look like it's coming out this year. 

If you follow and read this Blog. You will see NI discussing all the areas they are investing in for the future of LabVIEW. Interspersed with marketing BS. But the info is there.

https://decibel.ni.com/content/blogs/labview-news-english/

6 hours ago, ShaunR said:

Do you have stats for sign-ups over time like you have shown for posts?

The stats on this can't be relied upon because there is an issue with fake accounts. So this may be showing the latest wave of spammers rather than real user interest.

I moved this thread to the lounge.

The Wiki content still exists, I think. It has some technical issues to resolve. I will take a cursory look into the effort it will take to resurrect it. Before it went dark, the ability to edit was only enabled for account holders and I got zero requests from people to create an account in over 5 years. But I guess it only takes 1 person with determination to get the ball rolling.