Don't Put Malleable VIs Inside XNodes

[paul_cardinale]

If you have a malleable VI (.vim) inside an XNode,

and an instance of that .vim has a declined frame of a type specialization structure,

and inside that declined frame you call a VI owned by the XNode,

and you have a build spec that copies and renames the XNode,

Then that renamed copy of the XNode will be broken because the item in the declined frame isn't properly linked.

[Aristos Queue]

I wouldn't trust a malleable VI inside an XNode at all without extensive testing. XNodes are unsupported tech when used for general purpose problem solving. Although I did do some light testing of the interaction between the two technologies a couple years ago, I did not vet their interaction fully. When NI writes an XNode, we don't assume that "XNode" is a safe tech to use... we vet the specific XNode that we are writing, checking its correctness and stability under its various scenarios. None of our shipping XNodes have used VIMs.

You may have success using the two together, but I'd advise you to be careful. You have a tech (malleable VIs) that decides its internal types at caller's semantic analysis time  (i.e. every mouse click) lodged inside a tech (XNodes) that decides its types only at caller's compile time (i.e. when you click the run button). The malleables may not be happy having their type computations deferred.