Jump to content

Aristos Queue

Members
  • Posts

    3,164
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    177

Aristos Queue last won the day on September 15

Aristos Queue had the most liked content!

8 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Austin, TX

LabVIEW Information

  • Version
    LabVIEW 2020
  • Since
    2000

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Aristos Queue's Achievements

  1. Another VI I thought someone reading this forum thread might find helpful. This one calls the one I posted previously as a subVI. "Make Control Glow.vi" draws a fading rectangle behind the specified control. Save it and its subVI ("Offset Glow Rect.vi") to the same subdirectory. For example, here's a glow on a system OK button. Color and border thickness are parameterized. Saved in LV2020. Make Control Glow.vi Offset Glow Rect.vi
  2. Here is a helper routine that I wrote yesterday based on the other VI. It's the world's most inefficient way to draw a rectangle but it works, and if you're trying to do some sort of animation fade effect, you can do it with this by putting in decreasing opacity. Draw Blended Rectangle.vi
  3. You can't save for previous anything inside vi.lib. Just do Save As >> Copy to a new location and then save that for previous. (It's been that way longer than I've worked on LabVIEW, and I just realized I have never asked why. It's just "one of those things" that I picked up early in my career that became part of the mental landscape.)
  4. New in LabVIEW 2020: C:\Program Files (x86)\National Instruments\LabVIEW 2020\vi.lib\picture\PNG\Draw Flattened Blended Pixmap.vi I didn't create this one. It is not in the palettes. I have asked that it be added in a future version.
  5. Yes. My current customer does. It is a primary use case that we are currently working around the obvious (and trivial to fix) bug in the toolkit.
  6. Allow me to rephrase then. Recording an array when passed a NAMED cluster is definitely a bug, regardless of the behavior of the variants.
  7. The fix is easy -- just get the names of the cluster elements and pass into the subarray instead of relying upon the Variant To Data node to capture the names.
  8. Our use case is nullable strings and nullable integers. We want to be able to differentiate between "this is the set value of the parameter (including possibly empty string)" and "this parameter has never been set, so defer to the default". So a cluster of variant correctly should record "null" for an empty variant and not-null for a non-empty variant. Recording an array when passed a cluster is definitely a bug, regardless of the behavior of the variants.
  9. Found two bugs in "Variant to JSON Text.vi". The fixed VI is attached, saved in LV 2015. Included in this is a whole lot of manual diagram cleanup to help me follow some cases I was trying to understand. I noticed that there are several calls to the To JSON primitive that do not have the "enable LV extensions" boolean wired up. I did NOT change any of those, but they may warrant a review. There are also a few places where the error cluster is dropped that I don't think it should be. FIRST Here's the test case for the major bug: Expected JSON: {"a":null,"b":null} Actual JSON: [null, null] SECOND A simple miswire: the LV extensions bool was wired to the pretty print terminal in the Waveform case. Variant to JSON Text.vi
  10. There are many links on the Internet to tell you how to configure git to use custom tools for VI. Many are wrong. Yesterday, I and another developer outside NI worked through the sequence and got it working repeatably on both of our machines. Here is the process. Save both of the attached files someplace permanent on your hard drive that is outside of any particular git repo. We used C:\Users\<<username>>\AppData\Local\Programs\GIT\bin _LVCompareWrapper.sh_LVMergeWrapper.sh Modify your global git config file. It is saved at C:\Users\<<username>>\.gitconfig You need to add the following lines: [mergetool "sourcetree"] cmd = 'C:/Users/smercer/AppData/Local/Programs/GIT/bin/_LVMergeWrapper.sh' \"$BASE\" \"$LOCAL\" \"$REMOTE\" \"$MERGED\" trustExitCode = true [difftool "sourcetree"] cmd = 'C:/Users/smercer/AppData/Local/Programs/GIT/bin/_LVCompareWrapper.sh' \"$REMOTE\" \"$LOCAL\" [merge] tool = sourcetree [diff] tool = sourcetree That's it. There are lots of ways to edit the .gitconfig from the command line or by using SourceTree's UI... if you know those ways, go ahead and use them.
  11. Dont misunderstand me: I think it’s a great toolkit, and I think it should be a G toolkit not a language primitive. I’m just finding it’s edge cases. 🙂
  12. Kind of. The JSONText VIs are more efficient overall than my originals that I slapped together in a weekend. But the current JSONText VIs do have some inefficiencies that my originals didn’t have (most notably, see the earlier post about accessing all fields of an object) that crop up when translating schemas. And the single serializer hook is insufficient to do some operations — support for sets/maps or custom translations of complex data structures, for example. These are things that the CL architecture accounts for that I wish JSONText was refactored to support. Having said that, I’m happy enough for my own projects with the existing toolkit and unwilling to donate the refactoring time. It is definitely a good toolkit. But it still has a long way to go in my opinion.
  13. @ShaunR "Didn't that do JSON?" Yes. Initially I rolled my own JSON parser, but it was rewritten to call JSONText as subVIs. The Character Lineator is a better framework (my opinion) for importing and exporting objects into/out of JSON than trying to hook the serializer directly. Raw JSON doesn't provide any schema version management nor any data massaging capacities. It's just fields without context. The JSONText library is important for the raw string handling. You need more infrastructure sitting above it to actually use JSON. CL is one possible choice for that infrastructure. The serializer hook that was added to JSONText in its last revision allows users to roll their own infrastructure.
  14. It has pros and cons. It is definitely a nice change of pace. 🙂
  15. I generally prefer #4 straight up. If you add #5, anyone not supplying the types will be slowed down by the code checking the input variant for "Did you provide a type for this attribute? How about this attribute?" and getting a "no" answer each time. It's not slow, but it is an unnecessary hiccup. Anyone who knows the types can get them from the generated variant. The one difficulty that makes me lean toward #5 is objects. If we parse "a":5 then we know to add attribute "a" as an integer. But if we hit "a":{ ... } then that can be a cluster of those elements, another variant attribute table, or an class. In those cases, I'd like to leave it to the Serializer to decide how to parse what is between the braces. If it can detect that the stuff between the braces is an object or a known cluster and deserialize it, great. And if it cannot, it yields to its parent implementation which pulls it in as a variant attribute table. Does that make sense?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.