Rolf Kalbermatter

And I incidentally just had an application that I had inherited from someone and needed to debug where GetValuePointer.xnode would return with an error 7 : File Not found, when executed in a build app. Rather than digging into xnode handling and find out why on earth it was returning such an error (for a reportedly valid pointer created with DSNewPtr) I simply replaced the whole thing with a call to StrLen and MoveBlock and was done with it!

It's only for Linux 64-bit a 64-bit value. And it's seems a bit of a GCC choice, while Microsoft chose to keep long as a 32-bit integer (and not support long long for some time instead insisting in their _int64 private type). And while not sure about the original Sun Solaris versions which might only have existed as 32-bit anyways, the later Linux kernel based versions however almost certainly use the same logic as the other Linux versions, although Sun had a tendency of trying to customize it when they could, and sometimes even when they shouldn't :-).

Not likely. The efficiency in the Transpose function comes from the fact that LabVIEW really creates something that is called a sub array. This is not a real array but a data structure that contains flags, offset, stride and similar attributes and a pointer to the original array data. Many functions in LabVIEW are able to operate on both arrays and sub arrays. A transposed array simply stores the fact that the array data is actually transposed in the flags and then any function that sees it knows to exchange the row and column value in the original array. If a function doesn't support the sub array flavor it simply calls a function that converts the sub array into a real array, eventually imposing the penalty of the transpose operation anyhow, but many functions can simply work with such sub arrays directly. A graph for instance has the ability to transpose the 2D array data already, so if it receives a transposed sub array it simply inverts the transpose setting of the graph for this array data. For the indexing into the array the fact that the array is transposed should not really make a big difference as the real data is still in the original order (if it wasn't, the whole operation would not only use double the memory but be significantly slower as shuffling the data around is taking some performance).

Note that "long order" is an int32 under Windows in any bitness, but an int64 under Linux for 64-bit! And the i32 portion in v might be actually in the higher order half on Big Endian platforms. For current LabVIEW versions that is however only relevant for VxWorks RT targets. All other supported platforms are Little Endian nowadays.

There are many companies offering technologies that are based on optical fiber sensors. One I have helped in the past was FBGS in Belgium, with this software https://fbgs.com/components/illumisense-software/ .

The zero feedback is a common problem. Or if you get feedback it is often about "if you could add this and that feature, please" which feels rather "beggish" and often the "please" is even missing. Considering that the whole thing is out in the open as open source so anyone who would care can get his hands dirty and get that feature built in themselves, is quite disheartening. And extra bonus would be if the result would be shared back with the community. 😀

IMAQdx Open Camera VI accesses the IMAQdx driver API which only can recognize certain types of cameras that must themselves somehow announce to the system. For Webcam cameras this happens through the dedicated camera driver that is installed in the OS system and which installs the camera in the Windows DirectShow system which IMAQdx can access. For other Cameras it depends on the camera. Firewire cameras install in the Fireware driver stack which IMAQdx also can access. But Network cameras are an entirely different beast. IMAQdx has functionality to work with such cameras as long as they support the Genicam standard, which is part of the GigE standard (although not every GigE camera implements this properly and therefore may not be compatible with IMAQdx). Any other camera is NOT automatically supported by IMAQdx. If you want to access it in IMAQdx you have to install them as a Windows DirectShow device with an according DirectShow or kernel driver. In your case you are wanting to find most likely an RTP-UDP DirectShow driver for your camera. There are many around on the internet, most not for free, and all of them require you to setup the actual camera URL in the driver settings.

The Create Image function does a search in a list of images based on the name you pass in and automatically will reuse that image if it finds it. If not it will create it and add it to that list. The linear increase in execution time is a clear indication of this. As the number of images in this list grows, the search will take longer and it is obviously a simple linear search. Why this increase doesn't seem to happen in the IDE is a bit a mystery. Something somehow seems to cache some information here.

That's definitely true, unless your time costs nothing 😀, which it very rarely does. Maybe someone working at a university could do that, but they hardly will ever need a real Test Executive. Also if you do it as a hobby, the hours don't really count either, but for that a real Test Executive is WAYYY too big to ever hope to tackle it. Leaves the professional use cases and unless you are planning to sell your own Test Executive it almost always will be more expensive to write your own. Actually the initial writing is not even the biggest cost factor although certainly not something to ignore, but the long term maintenance is the more costly and less sexy work you have to do. If you have unique requirements such as that it runs on the real-time, developing something yourself may be unavoidable, but otherwise it is going to be simply a "not invented here syndrome".

😃 lol, missed that one.

This link doesn't work. Maybe you need to setup an alias on your website. The correct location seems to be https://www.hampel-soft.com/release-automation-tools-for-labview/

LabVIEW controls are not Windows widgets but fully created and maintained by LabVIEW itself. As such you can not locate LabVIEW controls with tools like AutoIT that assume that a user interface is based on controls that are implemented as Windows child windows. I'm not familiar with UIA, but the claim that it can identify and control LabVIEW controls does sound a bit strong to me. From what I know, LabVIEW controls are fully owner drawn and implemented using a LabVIEW internal object oriented system originally even implemented in standard C, but since almost certainly ported to a C++ system. As far as any external system is concerned a LabVIEW front panel does simply contain lines, texts and maybe some alpha shading but no controls whatsoever. The only entity that can access this object hierarchy for external applications is the VI server interface, but that is highly LabVIEW specific. So I would suppose one could develop an AutoIT plugin that goes over VI Server to control the UI of a LabVIEW VI.

Back in those days I had my own Test Executive Framework modeled around how the NI Test Executive was designed. It worked pretty well but was quite a burden to maintain. That was in LabVIEW 5.1 and 6.x days and VI server was just about invented and very limited, so quite painful to implement a system like a Test Executive that should be easily scriptable. We later moved to a system based on Lua for LabVIEW for some of these applications, where Lua was the scripting environment that the test engineer would use to customize the entire product tests. It worked fairly well but had its own challenges as many things were either integrated in the LabVIEW application and only modifiable by us but not the client, or we had to do the interfacing in Lua too and that would usually make the code so complex that the client couldn't change it either. It's a very tricky thing to get right. In fact I think there is not a single solution that fits all. TestStand went into a certain direction that works fairly well for semiconductor testing and characterization but not as ideal for some other test setups. And it is a system of its own that is fairly complex and needs to be understood well in addition to whatever extra environment you use to implement the actual test connectors (LabVIEW, LabWindows/CVI, Visual Studio VB,C/C++, or Python). Also it is quite database driven so you need to have some ideas about that too or you end up in a mess with it quickly. I never quite felt at home with TestStand, despite having it used for several customer projects, mainly in the semiconductor industry. On the other hand, writing your own Test Executive is A LOT of work, both for developing it and even much more so for maintaining it. I would not really want to do that anymore unless there would be a very unique opportunity for a specific project, but chances for that are pretty much non-existent. And inside Averna we have our own product Averna Launch which is build around NI TestStand. So chances to get to develop something else besides that are pretty much moot. 😀 Averna Launch however takes the database control to an even higher level, so you really have to think about that in order to get the maximum benefit of the product.

Well, I have a 4.3 alpha on github. But haven't been able to work on that for some time.

We also have iDeal here in the Netherlands! 😀

The unchange is in other solutions called mask. And it is in reality simply doing a read, with a boolean combined OR of the value and an AND of the mask and then writing it back.

The underlaying API does not support that and it is quite logical. I2C and SPI are not really designed as bit protocols but as byte protocols. They address typical multiples of 8 or 16 bit per data transfer. The method to do what you want to do involves reading back the full 8 bit port, modify the bit in question and send back everything.

Well you installed the 32-bit version of the the DLL (syswow64 is despite its name NOT for 64-bit DLLs but the 32-bit versions of DLLs on a 64-bit Windows system). Same accounts possibly for the MPSEE.DLL. They all need to be 64-bit in order to be loadable in 64-bit LabVIEW! Best is probably to download the actual MPSEE driver directly from the FTDI site here and use the 64-bit version of the DLL inside under: libMPSSE.zip\libMPSSE__0.6\lib\windows\visualstudio\x64\Release\libMPSEE.dll

The MPSSE.DLL is only a high level DLL driver that depends on the low level D2XX driver from FTDI. You need to have that installed too, and it needs to be present in a location where the Windows DLL Loader can find it. If you download and install the standard driver from the FTDI site, this should be taken care for you. https://ftdichip.com/drivers/d2xx-drivers/

New VIs should simply inherit the default setting you made in your Tools->Options->Environment->General unless you create them from inside a project, in which case they inherit the setting as made in the project properties. The bug mentioned by Yair may be related to the fact that the restoring of auto-saved VIs is not happening in the project context but in the global LabVIEW context and therefore uses the global settings from the Tools menu.

The wrapping may be done anyways even if it is a clean pass through of all parameters. Simply because this was how the VIs always worked and it was actually easier. The lvanlys.dll had to be modified anyways, so just leave the original exports and redirect them wherever necessary to MKL, with or without any parameter massaging. This makes the tedious work of going into every single LabVIEW VI to edit the Call Library Node superfluous. And yes I have experience with wrapping DLLs from LabVIEW and can assure you that the last thing you want to do when changing something is to make a change that will require you to go into every single VI and make some more or less minor changes. Aside from being a mind numbing job, it is also VERY VERY easy to make stupid mistakes in such changes by forgetting a certain change in some of the VIs. And then you have to open each and every VI again to make sure that you did really change everything correctly, and to be safe, do that again and again. Tedious, painful and utterly unnecessary. Instead just leave the VIs alone, change the underlying DLL in whatever way you need and you are done. There is still a lot of testing after that, but at least one potential source of errors less.

You might be right but please note that those LabVIEW VIs more or less all call "internal" functions in lvanlys.dll. But in reality all they do is massage the parameters from a LabVIEW friendly format into an Intel MKL C(++) API format and then call the actual MKL library. So the fact that a VI calls LV_something in that DLL means absolutely nothing in terms of if it is ultimately executed inside lvanlys.dll or actually simply forwarded to MKL to do the heavy number crunching part. It could be implemented fully in lvanlys.dll, because the MKL doesn't provide this function or not in the way the old NI library did, so for compatibility reason they maintained the old code but in most cases it is simply a forward to the MKL with minor parameter datatype translations. Even if there is some real implementation part in lvanlys.dll for a function, it still will very often ultimately call the MKL for lower level functions so may still depend on a corrected MKL to fix a bug.

No! We used it on a IC 3173 NI Linux RT controller. It should supposedly work on all NI Linux RT hardware.

I'm not exactly privy to the details but most likely NI doesn't even build the MKL themselves. They simply take the binaries as released from Intel and package them with their LabVIEW wrapper and be done with it. And there are a number of issues with this that way: 1) NI can indeed not patch that library themselves anymore but has to wait on Intel to make bug fixes. 2) And NI won't pick a new release everytime Intel decides to make some more or less relevant change to that library. Instead they will likely review the list of changes since the last pick they did and decide if it is worth the hassle to rebuild a new MKL + LabVIEW package. This is not a one hour process of just adding the new DLLs to the old package build but instead involves a lot of extra work in terms of making sure everything is correct and lots and lots of testing too. The moment for such a review is likely usually a few months before a new release of LabVIEW. IF Intel happens to make this one single important change one month after this, NI will most likely not pick it up until the next review moment a few months before the next full LabVIEW release and then you can easily see how it can take 2 years.