Neil Pate

16 minutes ago, Yagnik_Patel said:

But I also need to finish my project in time so I have to try this example as well.   I am trying to learn the concept and also the finish my work together.

You need to learn to crawl before you can walk... perhaps somebody in this forum will just show you the answer you are looking for (i.e. do your work for you). I am not that guy though, sorry.

Thanks Yagnik.

The tree control is not a nice thing to work with, I fear you are trying to do too much at once.

I think perhaps you need to start off a bit smaller. If you really really want to include the enum items in the table first try and get it working as a 2D string array. I mean not using any of the code you have been, just by figuring it out yourself. You can achieve what you want with a single enum and a nested for loop. Once you have that working you can figure out how to get that integrated into the cluster viewer code you have.

Yagnik, anything is technically possible as you have all the source code.

What you propose just removes the need for the nested loop as you then have the elements already in the cluster.

Out curiosity, what is your exposure to LabVIEW, I mean how comfortable are you with the language?

Why are you changing the OpenG VIs? Those are meant as external libraries and should not normally be altered. If you really want to make some changes to one of them, make a copy, give it another name and then change that one.

ok, I understand.

So when trying to present the enum in the tree you need two loops. Loop once over all the possible strings, and inside this loop again over all the strings and write them as simple items.

12 minutes ago, Yagnik_Patel said:

@Neil Pate: As the Config cluster( current example) is my Process Image of the system, so Enum values are my data channel. Thus once I get the treeview I can use them and I dont need the value column at all for treeview. 

Sorry, I still don't get it...

The Config cluster is your process data, ok that makes sense. But an Enum is only a single value, it is not multiple values, why are you trying to display it as multiple values?

I still don't get what you are trying to achieve. Why do you want to present the different enum possibilities in the tree, what do you plan on having in the value column for these elements?

I didn't say it was going to be easy...

Can you not iterate over the Enum strings and just insert them one by one using the Parent tag?

Yes sure it is possible, you need to modify the case structure and handle an enum slightly differently to other types.

Yes, that is what I suspected you wanted. Do you understand what the rest of the code is doing? It is displaying the value of each element in your clusters/arrays, not the possible set of values...

All you need to do is make an array or cluster with one element set to each value of the enum.

smithd, Ton's variant probe is great but does not do any more than the Cluster viewer class at the OP included. His question was related to the desired to display enum values as children and not in the value column, and I am trying to understand why this is desirable as an enum is not a collection of values at runtime (like a cluster or array).

OK so that is better, although still I would ditch the OpenG directory and just install them properly.

So I don't really understand your question. The Tree is a representation of your cluster, the hierarchy of the tree (parent/child relationship) represents the nested clusters and values. The value column shows the actual value of each element, this appears to be working correctly.

What are you trying to achieve? Can you post a screenshot of what you would like to see?

Your zip is all messed up, so many dependencies in the wrong place etc. Take a look at the Files tab in your project to see where all your files are. You need to include everything not in the LabVIEW directory if you want somebody else to check it out.

Also, why are your OpenG VIs not inside the LabVIEW directory?

I have nothing substantial to add other than I also added my calls inside conditional disable structures which I never in the end bothered to disable as performance was way in limits. The calls themselves are quite lightweight I think.

Bump to this thread. I really do not like mutation history being stored.

I have a stupid LabVIEW bug where the IDE thinks I am using a class which I am not (really am not). I thought perhaps it was being referenced from the class mutation history. So I poked around in the history of some of my classes and am horrified at the history that exists! I don't know about others, but my standard framework has been adapted over time (several years for my current actor based framework). I still have references in the mutation history for application specific classes from my original project! Urgh... 

I suppose I have no excuse, I have known about this "feature" for a while, but it is easy to forget about.

Rolf, sounds like a great idea. I love those VIs but yes they can be on the slow side.

I would happily accept the trade-off of >= LV2012.

18 minutes ago, shoneill said:

Service unavailable......

works for me. 

This is a little different to, say, LabJack; this fools the Xilinx compiler into thinking that the "standard" work-flow is being used. There could be some license agreement behind the scenes between NI and Xilinx that we do not know about.

I think perhaps we have a different definition of the word *any*, but I do not wish to take your thunder away. This is very impressive what you have managed to create, clearly a lot of work has gone into it. I seem to recall seeing something like this a few years ago?

This is almost certainly a non-NI sanctioned product, are you aware of any legal ramifications of piggybacking into the toolchain? What I mean is, if we have a valid FPGA Toolkit license is this actually legal?

My Chinese is not so good, so the website is not much help. Do you have pricing information?

Also, the Atom-RIO looks very interesting, I presume it is like a cRIO type clone?

19 hours ago, smithd said:

Isn't the radio button approach still static? I

Absolutely. My top-level main GUIs are entirely static with regards to what "views" can be loaded into the main subpanel. I can only shudder to think how complicated this would all get if everything (including every single scrap of business logic) was "templated".

Huh?

You ask a question and then answer it yourself. Have I missed something here? Can you share with us how you can target any Xilinx FPGA?

You have my respect. I gave up on resizing GUIs in LabVIEW about a decade ago...

Christian, I usually customise a boolean radio control to have nice big buttons vertically, this drives the selection of the current "view" which is just what I call the VI (actor, module, whatever) running in the subpanel.

On the left hand side is the customised radio button. In the middle is the subpanel and down at the bottom (the yellow bar) is where my status panel (also a subpanel) gets loaded.

Sounds like you are on the right track. I do like your idea of a subpanel based config page, but in all honesty have not ever actually needed one yet (and I am talking reasonable sized projects here).

I personally am not a big fan of the Actor Framework that ships with LV. I have probably not given it enough of a chance, but it just feels too busy for me. I have created my own lightweight Actor Framework (based on User Events and not queues) and that does not use the command pattern (I don't really like having a class per action/message).

Christian, the original solution you have described is very common, I have definitely used it in the past, with good success. Such an implementation certainly will allow you to get up and running nice and quickly. Unless you are updating your indicators at a ludicrous rate (like > 1000 Hz) or throwing huge graphs onto the screen I would not worry about performance. Modern CPUs are just so good. Even today I still use a tab for a GUI which I know is going to be simple (like a pop-up window or something), but certainly never as my top-level.

However, the problem with the tab structure is only good for logical GUI grouping, it does not help you at all on the block diagram which is where all the trouble will be. I guarantee you, if your application works well and has a predicted lifespan of more than a few years you will get more and more requests just to add another button or indicator. This will be easy at first but after point you will reach critical mass of controls and indicators where it just becomes too unwieldy for you as a developer to make changes. You will struggle much more than the compiler... 

If you are comfortable with the idea of a subpanel for your configuration, then yes I would take it one step further and replace your tab with a subpanel. This architecture forms the basis of most of my GUI type applications to this day. Also I probably would not use a subpanel for the config, how likely are you to want to swap that out "on-the-fly" without changing the rest of the GUI?

Note that as smithd mentioned, if you do go down the subpanel route you will have multiple VIs running in parallel, so you will need to start thinking about how you will communicate between them. There are lots of different techniques (queues, user events etc), figuring out this is a great way to push your LabVIEW skills to the next level.

26 minutes ago, smithd said:

I dont know if you are looking at some specific thing he said elsewhere, but in general I disagree. If you know what you want to put on the screen, there is nothing wrong with tabs and subpanels overcomplicate the situation because you've gone from 1 UI loop to N.

Nope, just guessing. Something with two tabs very often ends up as ten tabs with a single event structure handling dozens if not hundreds of value change events. More than one UI loop is good, not bad.

You may know what you want on the screen today...