-
Posts
859 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
27
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Antoine Chalons
-
don't be too quick to install LV2019 SP1 f4
Antoine Chalons replied to Antoine Chalons's topic in LabVIEW General
I'm not sure what you mean... I never install VIPM via NIPM, it only offers an out of date version. But being stuck now, I've completely un-installed VIPM and VIPM runtime, and re-installed it from NIPM and I get the same error. I guess I should un-install LV2019 and re-install only up to 2019 f3... but that's going to take a long time -
don't be too quick to install LV2019 SP1 f4
Antoine Chalons replied to Antoine Chalons's topic in LabVIEW General
yes it is : https://www.ni.com/fr-fr/support/documentation/bugs/19/labview-2019-sp1-bug-fixes.html -
After installing LV2019 SP1 f4 using NIPM I can't launch VIPM (20 or 21) anymore If anyone has an idea to solve this...
-
Open source alternatives to TestStand?
Antoine Chalons replied to pawhan11's topic in LabVIEW General
Well... It's your -or your employer's- choice really. I'm sure you know all the potential benefits of open-sourcing your code. Really, appart from improvement suggestions, what's gonna come at you? In my current activities I don't have a need for a sequencer but I'm sure many people would love to take a look and get inspiration, if not more. Edit : after posting the above I just read again ShaunR's signature : "A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. (Herm Albright 1876-1944)." ;D -
Open source alternatives to TestStand?
Antoine Chalons replied to pawhan11's topic in LabVIEW General
The initial question was : is there an open source alternative. You won't make a commercial product, good. Now... are you going to publish the source? -
Open source alternatives to TestStand?
Antoine Chalons replied to pawhan11's topic in LabVIEW General
What is driving you away from TestStand, just the cost or some technical reasons? I mean, you're saying you want to migrate from it, if it's just to cut costs, finding an alternative.. well even if you find cheap/free one, the cost for doing your migration will be proportinal to the size of your existing projects, so think carefully. -
I've had some difficult clients in the past but it never got to that point 🤣
-
I've fixed quite a few bugs and changed the way timestamps are handled, now using JDP Science Common VIs for RFC-3339 You can follow on GitHub
-
I haven't checked how he handled comments. I started thinking about variant attributes to handle them (text and position) but it quickly gets tricky so for now I've accepted to either only read or lose comments.
-
Oh, and by the way, the VIP is now available on vipm.io : https://www.vipm.io/package/lv_toml/
-
Let me make sure I understand what you mean by this : You mean, they are ignored and don't mess up with extracting the data, right? (appart from the case in issue #1) Because for me one thing that is a bit annoying is if you load data from a TOML file that has some comments, as soon as you write using this lib, you lose all the comments, or am I missing something?
-
Just released v2.0.0 There's not a lot in it really, I'm hopping that the effort in improving the error reporting will help future developments like adding support for new data types and comments.
-
I've been thinking about this but as I said above, this a not a short term need for me. I do hope I'll find some me-time to play with comments during the summer. Interestingly, there is a reported issue on the original repo that is linked to comments : https://github.com/erdosmiller/lv-toml/issues/1
-
Ah.. I knew I'd screw-up the license handling... I have to say I didn't even look up how to handle open source license when forking. My bad, will fix that soon.
-
Timestamp support is not on my roadmap (yet) but I'll keep that in mind, thanks!
-
Thanks a lot for the clarification. I'll fix this in my fork.
-
@bjusticeI've seen issue #2 that you created on the original repo, I have to say I don't understand the problem nor the suggested solution. Could you post more info about this please?
-
I'm going to fork the repo on GitHub and work on it for my needs, What I'm planning to do is : short term : - move to LV2017 (just because it's the oldest I have already available on a VM) - add support for path - improve error reporting hopefully one day : - add support for comments At this point, I'm not planning to do any major refactoring. If anyone wants to participate... feel free : https://github.com/AntoineChalons/lv-toml
-
Well that's my case as well, and it worked with my (what we use to call) DSRL license number. As for uploading files, I created a srq last week and could upload files. Maybe things have changed since. If I go to my existing SRQs I can still upload files, I just tried, it worked. What I'm suspecting is that based on your account (partner / not partner / company, etc..) NI filters and gives you a different feature set for creating your SRQ, that wouldn't shock me.
-
I can confirm, it expects you LabVIEW License number. I've recently created a few SRQ via ni.com/ask The interface and the process have changed a bit, but I could describe my issue and attach files (max report amd a zip containing code).
-
This is great! Just in case we are thousands of LV users silently wishing for native TOML support : https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-Idea-Exchange/Add-native-support-for-TOML-file-format/idi-p/4136157
-
I see. Well it's great that you created it and shared it on GitHub. The tree display is also a nice feature. Now.. If jsontext gets support for comments and LabVIEW objects, it will be a no brainner.
-
Sounds great. I've seen you're also working issue 56, which would be another big advantage of jsontext over the TOML library.