Pulp Posted May 1, 2013 Report Share Posted May 1, 2013 Hello all, I have implemented a progress bar in LabVIEW, like this (called from the PostResultListEntry callback): Because it doesn't update smoothly I would like to try another approach: determine the number of 'Recorded Result' actions in the entire sequence at initialisation. However, I haven't found a way to accomplish that. I can get the names of the sequences in the sequence file, I can get the names of the steps in these sequences, but I can't retrieve the reference to the sequence that is called from the MainSequence. Can anyone tell me how to accomplish this? Greetings,Bart Quote Link to comment
Pulp Posted May 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 Hello all, No answer yet. Maybe I didn't describe it that well, so I'll try again. I have a MainSequence (see below picture), consisting of some sequence calls, some functions and some labels. The sequence calls contain subsequence calls. What I try to do (in LabVIEW) is to reconstruct the sequence from the provided Sequence Context. I have a list of all sequences in the sequence file (in this case MainSequence, SequenceA, SequenceB, SubSequence1, and SubSequence2). However, I can't get those exact names from the context. I have retrieved a lot of names (sequence, step, step type, adapter key, adapter display names - see below picture - don't worry, this is prototype code, I'll clean up when I have a solution), but none of them are the exact name of the sequence in the sequence file. Am I looking at this from the wrong angle? Thanks & greetings, Bart Quote Link to comment
mhaarman Posted May 7, 2013 Report Share Posted May 7, 2013 Hi Bart, The following images will show you how to get the Sequence name of the Sequence that your step is calling. Sequence.png shows the sequence with an Action to the VI that will get the name of the sequence called in the Main group. SequenceNameVI.png shows the VI implementation I hope this will help you Mathijs Quote Link to comment
Pulp Posted May 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2013 I thought I was close to a solution, but I didn't realise it was *that* close: about two meters Thanks, Mathijs! Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.