Tim_S

Well, I've got LV2011 downloaded, installed and configured. I mass compiled my current project, loaded the project and proceeded to send in my first SR for LV2011. Uh oh... I received a pop-up on loading the project stating: Compiler error. Report this problem to National Instruments Tech Support. Dynamic IUse Node has no reference VI to call. Node = 0x0000000B Tim

Hrm... and there is a download link to LV 2011... well, there goes my weekend. Tim

The LabVIEW help file has good answers to the difference between inline and reentrant subVIs and subroutine execution priority. There are examples that ship with LabVIEW of for loop parallelism. Tim

Does the offending VI have subVIs? Can you add "part of" the the VI into the code? I've run into this before; unfortunately the solution isn't coming to me. I vaguely recall saving the entire code to a new directory, but I can't say if that was the solution to this problem or some other bizarreness I'd run across. Tim

I'm not familiar with Mercurial or Git; we use SVN at work. One thing that flags my attention in the article is that it states that Mercurial does not handle large binaries well, which indicates to me that it could have issues with the size of some LabVIEW VIs. There is also some allusion to the SCC method being to copy all files to everyone's machine, which would be bad for us as our development laptops do not have huge hard drives (~75 GB). Tim

I'm a bit more optimistic, but that must be the side of the bed I got out of. I'm looking forward to LV 2011 with the expectation that it will be a stable release. I've been experiencing too many "error in module xxx.cpp" messages after what appeared to be a clean shutdown of LabVIEW to make me feel comfortable about using it on a test station. Tim

Wireshark is a good product; unfortunately I've only worked with it with the detailed instructions of tech support. It occurred to me you might be able to get load information from a managed switch. Tim

Hrm... Do you have anything to monitor network traffic?

Offhand that sounds like a Producer-Consumer model. You should be able to find an example on NI's website. Tim

The control on top should receive the click event and not the one underneath. Tim

It seems we have a difference in philosophy. I don't believe I need to compete with OS security; I believe I need to "keep my little sister out". The security level needed for a plant test station is quite minimal in that it needs to keep honest-people-honest and prevent the idle individual from making undesired changes. I agree they should not be taping the passwords to the front of the monitor or Sharpie the password inside of the rack door (yes, customers do this). Someone who is fired loses physical access to the test station upon being escorted out of the building and would have to go through the much more secure plant network to gain access from the outside. I should note the systems I put together do not have government security clearances on them or anything of the like. I can see using an operating system login for such systems, especially when you exceed confidential data. Interesting. I shall have to look into this. Tim

I see permissions on the test PC as two things: access to the features of the test program and access to the operating system. The test program has permissions including calibration, maintenance (manual) operations, test execution, and test and limit editing. The operating system has permissions to access files and directory, programs, and system and user configurations. I believe IT should and must be involved with the operating system permissions, but is (at most) optionally involved in the test program permissions. Tim

Are you referring to test program permission (e.g., modify test plans and calibrate) or operating system permission (e.g., directory/folder and device access)? Tim

We have a security service that is separate from the windows login. The login is Windows-like and is only for the test program. We have Windows auto-login to an operator account with restricted Windows permissions and locked-down operating system level security. Your client thinks they want to use the Windows login, I would contend this isn't what they want as each time they want to calibrate or perform some administrative task they would have to put the machine in a safe state, shut down the test program, log out of windows, log back in to windows, launch the test program, do what they want to do, rinse and repeat. All of that can be exceptionally time consuming especially if you are leveraging certain applications that take a long time (5 minutes) to launch (*cough* Siemens OPC server) every time you log in. Tim

I've gotten errors like that in 8.6 and 2010. Typically I've tried again or restarted LabVIEW. I've also seen the reverse where I am able to compile with the log file turned on, but my coworker could not (he could compile with logging turned off). Tim

Unfortunately, the only thing I can contribute is that it was very difficult to debug similar design elements to the core of this style of state machine. Tim

Yes, typo on my part.

Named queues can be used if you set a front panel control, passing using a call by reference, populate a FGV, populate a global, etc... Tim

LabVIEW Wiki

My first reaction to your example is to reach for the crosses and holy water. I have old code with some similar behavior which was difficult to follow and debug. I abandoned that line of coding due to the difficulty in debug and maintenance. I didn't have performance issues with what I was doing (a configuration editor), however the debug and maintenance was unpleasant enough that I have a definite bias against such a structure. Tim

Have you tried the "Drag and Drop - Multiple Data Types to Start Drag" example? (Ships with LabVIEW) Tim

I'm reminded, in medieval times, that everyone knew tomatoes are poisonous to humans. (Actually it was the acid in the tomato causing the lead in the plates to leach into the food. This appears to be an English and American belief from what I've looked up.) I don't think I've seen this structure and it doesn't sound like something I'd use. Do you have an example?

I would guess that the receiver has stopped reading messages from the TCP connection or is not servicing the connection as fast as the transmitting side is writing messages. You would have to describe more about your system and code to hazard a guess as to what may be happening. Tim

This sounds like a circular buffer for looking at the last X loops. A simple RMS might be sufficient, but it's unclear what anomaly you'd be looking for. Tim

Finally got a CAR: 305160 Tim