Remove Frame Not Implemented

[hooovahh]

Crosspost in NI Forums

So I saw a new error today, one I've never seen before but I'm assuming other have. It is error 1072, and the text along with it is the following:

LabVIEW: This property or method is not yet implemented.

I was not aware that LabVIEW shipped with method calls that are available without hacking, which are not implemented. I was attempting to use a invoke node to remove a frame from an event structure. I was first frustrated in the fact that I couldn't programatically get the name of each event case. There is a Lava post here which attempts to read it using OCR but has issues with different system fonts, clear type, and cross platform issues. I decided to just delete the frame based on the index and not the text since that seemed to difficult to find. Apparently this won't work either and I was forced to come up with a work around using a disabled diagram structure, which would have duplicate code in each case, other than in one the event structure has the one case removed that I wanted. I would then remove the disabled structure leaving the case I want, with the events I want.

The post I linked to earlier is from 2009, and I'm a little surprised to find out that the event structure scripting tools are still immature. Can anyone comment on their development? Or what other scripting functions are available to but not implemented? I assume features like "Remove Frame" are implemented and NI uses them, they just aren't exposed. If that's the case I'm surprised that NI couldn't find the time to expose these functions in the couple of years scripting has been mainstream.

Edited July 24, 2012 by hooovahh

[crelf]

Maybe that's the case - maybe not. My guess is that no one uses it internally at NI, and that you've tried to use it will jog their memory to include it in a subsequent release.

[hooovahh]

Maybe that's the case - maybe not. My guess is that no one uses it internally at NI, and that you've tried to use it will jog their memory to include it in a subsequent release.

Thanks Crelf, you saying that made me realize this may be better answered at NI's forums so I posted there as well.

[Darin]

Maybe that's the case - maybe not. My guess is that no one uses it internally at NI, and that you've tried to use it will jog their memory to include it in a subsequent release.

I have seen this error (or very similar) and was told that some methods have a prototype in the header file but have not actually been implemented. I'll wager the reverse of crelf, you will probably jog their memory to remove the prototype in a subsequent release.

[Rolf Kalbermatter]

I have seen this error (or very similar) and was told that some methods have a prototype in the header file but have not actually been implemented. I'll wager the reverse of crelf, you will probably jog their memory to remove the prototype in a subsequent release.

Actually that doesn't have to be. It's a logical VI scripting method for case structures, yet it seems the need was never big enough in comparison to the implementation cost that anyone has really bothered to assign resources for this. So yes this may jog NI and it could result in either adding the implementation or fixing the availability of that method in the public VI interface, depending if the implementation is hampered by some difficult to tackle subtleties or not.

[Aristos Queue]

Remove Frame is not implemented at all, not even internally. Pretty much all of our scripting operations are constructive, not destructive, so it doesn't surprise me that this got missed for so long.

[Darin]

Remove Frame is not implemented at all, not even internally. Pretty much all of our scripting operations are constructive, not destructive, so it doesn't surprise me that this got missed for so long.

Actually that doesn't have to be. It's a logical VI scripting method for case structures, yet it seems the need was never big enough in comparison to the implementation cost that anyone has really bothered to assign resources for this.

Let's all be clear here, we are talkiing about Event Structures (and Stacked Sequences if you are keeping score). Remove Frame is implemented and works just great for Case Structures and Disable Structures (only ones I have tested).

[crelf]

Remove Frame is not implemented at all, not even internally.

Sounds like this should go the Idea Exchange!

[Rolf Kalbermatter]

Let's all be clear here, we are talkiing about Event Structures (and Stacked Sequences if you are keeping score). Remove Frame is implemented and works just great for Case Structures and Disable Structures (only ones I have tested).

I was refering to a method to retrieve the case labels. That is where I came across this error at some point. It may be in 2011 though, didn't check recently.

[hooovahh]

Let's all be clear here, we are talkiing about Event Structures (and Stacked Sequences if you are keeping score). Remove Frame is implemented and works just great for Case Structures and Disable Structures (only ones I have tested).

To help with the clarity I've made a VI that shows the error. It will make a new VI, drop down an event structure, add a frame to it, and then optionally attempt to remove that frame, then open the block diagram to see the result. If you choose to remove the frame after making it, there will be the error we are talking about.

[Darren]

Remove Frame is a method of the MultiFrameStructure class. Since there's currently no mechanism in VI Server to hide parent methods in child classes that don't implement them, we see it in the list, but get an error that it doesn't work.

I've complained about the lack of scripting support for the Event Structure for years. Everybody reading this thread really needs to go kudo this idea.

[Antoine Chalons]

I've complained about the lack of scripting support for the Event Structure for years. Everybody reading this thread really needs to go kudo this idea.

Can't vote twice

Wouldn't it be cool if, say for 100 kudos received on the forum (not on idea exchange) or for 20 "accepted solutions" you would get an extra vote for the idea exchange?