LabVIEW's built-in XNode editing tools are enabled using a license file, rather than a simple INI toggle. Presumably they do this for stronger discouragement from unofficial use, as hacking one's way past that feels a lot more "shady" than just adding a line to a config file.
But what about the Linux and Mac versions? They don't have a license manager, so how is XNode development enabled there? One might guess that those features simply aren't compiled into the released builds of those versions, but there is actually precedent to suggest otherwise. VI Scripting used to be similarly restricted using a license, but then they made it public. At the time, LabVIEW didn't have a toggle in the Options for it. But they didn't need to release a patch to add one. Instead, they simply published their formerly-internal license file, and set their activation server to accept requests to activate it. And yet, Linux/Mac users weren't out of luck: it turned out that for them, it actually was just a configuration key.
The VI Scripting license had the internal name "LabVIEW_Scripting(_PKG)". The Linux/Mac configuration key was "Scripting_LabVIEWInternalTag".
At 17:48 in this video, several XNode-related configuration keys are shown, likely found in strings in the EXE or resource files. One of them is called "XNodeDevelopment_LabVIEWInternalTag". Guess what the internal name of the XNode Development license is.
I don't have the Linux/Mac version to test with, but I know a pattern when I see one. The following command was given in the readme for the VI Scripting package for Linux:
echo -e "labview.Scripting_LabVIEWInternalTag:\tTrue" >> ~/.labviewrc Here are the Mac instructions:
If you have either of those versions, it's probably worth a try: follow those instructions, but replace "Scripting" with "XNodeDevelopment", and see if you can open an XNode in the IDE, or create one from File->New. (Also, in the case of Mac, replace 8.6 with your actual LabVIEW version if necessary.)
(Here's where I got my information about enabling scripting: https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-APIs-Documents/LabVIEW-Scripting/ta-p/3535340?profile.language=en)
I am reading big TDMS files (~1GB) and I try to minimize memory usage.
I read a signal once and I want to keep it for later usage, so I tried to write it to a DVR in the hope that I have only one instance of the data in memory.
However the task manager tells me that uses 2 times more memory than it should.
I think the problem is that the array is not deallocated although I don't need it after writing it to the DVR.
Is there a solution to make sure I don't have copies of data?
By Ram Prakash
Can anyone please tell what a DVR [ Data value reference ] is ? I want to know at what situation it will be used and what are the advantages we get by using DVR. I am really confused in this topic . If someone has any code in which they have worked with DVRs. kindly share it to me.
I'm running into something I don't really understand. Maybe you can help me here !
I've got a LVLIB that is used as an 'Interface': it exposes public VIs which wrap around public functions of a private class (see code attached) . The class is private because I want to force the users to use the 'interface' functions.
In one of my interface VI, I create a DVR on the private class (Interface_init). The DVR is stored into a typedef (FClass_DVR.ctl) and this typedef is the 'reference' that link all the interface public functions.
In TestCode.vi (which is not part of the lvlib and illustrates the standard code that a user can create to use my driver), I can call my public interface functions and link them without any problem.
But as soon as I create an indicator on that reference (to create a state-machine-context-cluster for example), my TestCode VI breaks !
The error returned is : This VI cannot use the LabVIEW class control because of library access scope. The LabVIEW class is a private library item and can only be accessed from inside the same library or libraries contained in that library.
I understand that the class is private. But the DVR is contained into a public control. Using an In Place structure on that DVR into TestCode would not work, since the class is private. So why is the DVR control problematic at that point ? Creating it do not breaks any access protection...
Am I missing something ?
DVR Private POC.zip