Jump to content
RnDMonkey

Suitable way to support a multi-channel user interface?

Recommended Posts

I see a lot of knowledgeable minds around here, so here's my challenge. I have a test system that will have, at the user interface level per channel, 3 inputs and 2 outputs that together encompass a simple test scenario. I would like that scheme repeated up to 10 times in a single application so you could watch a bank of units under test, allowing both scripted or manual manipulation of inputs; plus viewing and logging of the outputs.

 

Here is an example of what I think I want the user to interact with:

post-43593-0-80584900-1454001373.png

 

I would like to associate each of these "subpanels" (not to be confused with actual subpanels - yet) with a LabVIEW class object that will handle the interface with hardware. All channels would be coordinated by a top-level VI (let's call it the Controller) that aggregates the channels and provides the ability to parse script files to press buttons and stuff. Here's where I'm having trouble, conceptually. One solution seems to be to spin off a new asynchronous call-and-collect VI (in the form of the pictured panel as a brat VI) that has the brat throw its control references into a queue for the Controller to catch and store for later access. The brat would receive stuff like a user stop event and the hardware session's class object when first called. I would then create an array a grid of 10 Sub Panel controls on the Controller's front panel and place each brat VI into its own Sub Panel like a facade.

 

The core of the hardware IO would be built into the brat VI (operating on the class objects), with the Controller pulling the strings and catching outputs and user interaction through dynamically registered events and property nodes operating on the brat's references. This all seems like it should all be workable and isn't fundamentally new to me.

 

Does this seem reasonable?

 

Another - much less (in)formed - concept I had was to avoid the ACBR brat structure entirely and implement this "subpanel" as an XControl that I can treat like a regular control on my Controller's front panel. I think of XControls because I can't have a cluster with both inputs and ouputs (unless I access the indicators with property nodes and fake it, I think), though I am actually only assuming that XControls allow both at once, or the equivalent behavior. In this scenario, the controller would retain an array of my hardware session's class objects and index them associated with each control. This way, the controller would invoke a hardware IO operation in a for loop to iterate across all devices. Similarly, when one of the XControls had a button clicked, the controller would see the value change event, figure out which one fired it, and do some function for only that associated hardware.

 

I've never implemented an XControl before - at all - so the first solution is going to be the easier one for me. Is there a good argument for going the XControl route over the asynchronous-brats-with-Sub-Panel route?

 

Thank you for your inputs, and sorry for the wall of text!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don’t need to you Async Call By Ref, you know, or (yikes) XControls.  A standard synchronous Call-by-ref is fine.  The simplest is just to have your controls connected to a hidden output-terminal indicators and have the main program poll them for changes at a few Hz.  Alternately you just have references to your controls on the block diagram connected to output indicators.  Then the main program calls the subVIs once on initialization to get the references and uses dynamic event registration and property nodes to control them (tip: make sure the subVIs front panels are loaded before registering).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to chew on what you said for a while before really visualizing what you were saying. I decided to go with ACBR for a few reasons:

1. I'd like each front panel to be controllable independently

2. I don't know how many nodes will be run, up to 10 total

3. I want to be able to pick up and drop nodes without affecting others

 

I know that these issues are surmountable using a synchronous call model, but I feel like it's just easier to mount and unmount them asynchronously and have the nodes shut down if they see that they are no longer in their sub panels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to chew on what you said for a while before really visualizing what you were saying. I decided to go with ACBR for a few reasons:

1. I'd like each front panel to be controllable independently

2. I don't know how many nodes will be run, up to 10 total

3. I want to be able to pick up and drop nodes without affecting others

 

I know that these issues are surmountable using a synchronous call model, but I feel like it's just easier to mount and unmount them asynchronously and have the nodes shut down if they see that they are no longer in their sub panels.

 

I know of quite a few people that use the MDI toolkit for things like this. If your VI are self contained then it is incredibly easy just launching panels. I don't normally advocate MDI for devices due to possible resource conflicts but it may be worth looking at for your use case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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