Issues building applications in LabVIEW 2023 Q3

[Mads]

Having mostly completed a major update of one of our largest projects I wanted to evaluate if we should take the step from LabVIEW 2022 Q4 32 bit to LabVIEW 2023 Q3 f2 64 bit before release...Unlike many we seem to rarely experience issues when upgrading (7-2022...), but this time I've hit a wall.

I had read about how people have problems with buidling applications with VIMs in 2023Q3, but there seems to be all kinds of other issues going on. At first builds would fail with Bad VIs, but clearing the compile cache removed that. Now instead, LabVIEW hangs on "Initializing build", then crashes after a while. I've reinstalled/fixed the full LabVIEW installation, mass compiled everything including the entire VI lib etc...but to no avail.

I see a lot of users say they have moved back to 2023 Q1, or plan to wait for 2024 (will there even be a new release in 2024 I wonder...), but are there users out there that do get things to work fine, even with RT Linux targets and 64 bit? I'll reinstall once more and this time try the 32 bit version...but if things still do not work I think we'll skip 2023 and hope for better days in 2025(?).

[Jordan Kuehn]

Well this is timely. We upgraded to 2023 Q3 64-bit a couple months back. No major issues at the time, even transitioning to 64-bit and programming RT. However for the last several days I have RT builds that proceed successfully but simply will not execute on the target. These were already built and deployed after the transition just fine, but now after minor changes it refuses to build something that will run. It's certainly possible I have a problem in the code or whatnot, but your post popped up on day 3 of me fighting this so I figured I'd chime in.

[Darren]

There have been a couple of patches released for LV 2023 Q3 that you can install from NIPM that fix (among other things) some App Builder issues. If y'all install those patches and still see issues, I know that LV 2024 Q1 is releasing shortly, which also includes some App Builder fixes. Additionally, if y'all are able to share code, feel free to PM me and I can get Bugs filed to R&D for build issues that we can reproduce in-house.

[hooovahh]

We've been on 2022 Q3 64-bit for Windows and RT applications for a little over a year.  Both the RT and Windows builds fail, but RT way more frequently.  I try tracking down the offending VI, I try renaming classes back and forth, I've tried checkbox roulette in the build settings, and I've tried changing the private class data.  The only thing that consistently works, is clearing the compile cache over and over until it builds.  Then usually running from source fails to deploy and I clear it over and over until that works, which usually breaks the build again.  My failure mode is different in that I don't see it hanging on initializing build.

All that being said I'm glad to leave 32 bit behind.

[Niatross]

Totally anecdotal and not fully verified and may not be relevant to you but I have had to abandon development of a couple of VIM's in 2023 since I have started using it. Just did not want to compile. If I converted to a standard instance (Can't remember the exact wording of that menu item) it would be fine but as a vim I just have broken run arrows everywhere.

I am wondering if they have changed something in 2023 regarding vim's.

[sam]

I had issues with 2023Q3 64/32 build , that would just crash when a build started.   

Turns out when deleting a file the project still had the file list (missing item)  probably project file wasn't saved after removing the file , ...  

Once I removed the missing item from the project , in this case the missing was in the main tree not the dependency or in memory section.

Anyway, maybe this would help, took me a minute to find it because in my case mass compilation also crashed LabVIEW.

[Mads]

So far I have gotten around the main crash/freeze (now with the 32 bit version, but I will revert back to the 64 bit and test too) by recompiling the FPGA bitfile that the RT version of the code would deploy. I can understand that it is necessary, but not that LabVIEW is not able to handle it better and produce a recompilation request or any other type of explanatory warning...

[Mads]

Now that 2024 Q1 is released maybe we can just skip to that 😮 It will be interesting to see if the issues highlighted in this thread has been resolved(?).

Edited January 24 by Mads

[Mads]

Ran into another 2023Q3 issue with Matrix functions as well when buidling another application in the same project, the solution to that has been discussed here already though:

https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/Impossible-to-build-a-working-EXE-in-2023-Q3-if-matrix-functions/td-p/4327930

I'll test today if any of these issues have been addressed in 2024 Q1...(not discussed in any of the release documents so far as I can see).
 

 

[X___]

10 hours ago, Mads said:

Now that 2024 Q1 is released maybe we can just skip to that 😮 It will be interesting to see if the issues highlighted in this thread has been resolved(?).

So it is the new way to not release any info whatsoever ("NI did not create this content for this release") on new releases?

I did not see any beta forum either during that all time. This is important to me, as I need to find funding for migrating my code base to a new environment, and any official evidence that NI/Emerson has dropped the ball to a new low (if I can forge this hybrid expression for the occasion) is useful.

[Mads]

38 minutes ago, X___ said:

I did not see any beta forum either during that all time.

No they did not have one (too busy with Emerson this time around perhaps), but they have opened one *now* to get feedback:

https://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-Public-Beta-Program-in/bd-p/labview-2024-beta

[hooovahh]

1 hour ago, X___ said:

So it is the new way to not release any info whatsoever ("NI did not create this content for this release") on new releases?

Here is some info on what changes there are in the new release.

https://www.ni.com/docs/en-US/bundle/upgrading-labview/page/labview-2024q1-changes.html

This is not the major release of the year so there isn't too much to talk about.  As for fixing the build issue I wouldn't hold your breath.  I've already seen someone mention that the build for an lvlibp failed with error 1502.  Cannot save a bad VI without its block diagram.  But turning on debugging allowed it to build properly.

[Phillip Brooks]

17 hours ago, X___ said:

So it is the new way to not release any info whatsoever ("NI did not create this content for this release") on new releases?

I did not see any beta forum either during that all time. This is important to me, as I need to find funding for migrating my code base to a new environment, and any official evidence that NI/Emerson has dropped the ball to a new low (if I can forge this hybrid expression for the occasion) is useful.

So a Google search shows this phrase on numerous pages at the top and bottom of the body text.

Is this maybe some sort of tag or something to indicate that a third party is creating the new content (outsourcing of site maintenance?)

Maybe some sort of a disclaimer that the data may not be accurate or complete; or maybe based on AI generated pages using pull request comments or requirements docs?

I'm thinking AI because there is so much talk in general about identifying anything created by it.

Edited January 25 by Phillip Brooks

[Phillip Brooks]

You can also tell that my posts are not AI because I keep editing them 😅

[crossrulz]

23 minutes ago, Phillip Brooks said:

You can also tell that my posts are not AI because I keep editing them 😅

Sounds like something a real AI would do to throw off the humans...

[hooovahh]

Bots won't procrastinate as well as I can.  It truly is what makes me human.

[Rolf Kalbermatter]

On 1/25/2024 at 2:12 PM, Phillip Brooks said:

So a Google search shows this phrase on numerous pages at the top and bottom of the body text.

Is this maybe some sort of tag or something to indicate that a third party is creating the new content (outsourcing of site maintenance?)

Maybe some sort of a disclaimer that the data may not be accurate or complete; or maybe based on AI generated pages using pull request comments or requirements docs?

I'm thinking AI because there is so much talk in general about identifying anything created by it.

It happens in a lot of locations. When you go to the download page of NI software (their specific canonical download entry for each product where you can choose the version and bitness and such) you usually have a link that goes to another page that shows available readme's, and similar documents and there it often states this sentence.

However it happens both for very old releases of software (I assume the person creating that entry felt to lazy or to frustrated to search the NI document management system for the according document) as well as very new releases (here the document may indeed not yet officially exist and has not been added to the document management system).

[dcoons]

On 1/24/2024 at 3:43 AM, Mads said:

Now that 2024 Q1 is released maybe we can just skip to that 😮 It will be interesting to see if the issues highlighted in this thread has been resolved(?).

@Mads I could not get builds for installers/packages to work in 2023Q3 either. It would hang forever until I killed the process with task manager or would finally pop up an error saying: "Error generating preview for executable" even though the EXE would successfully build. I found a few articles talking about this (https://knowledge.ni.com/KnowledgeArticleDetails?id=kA00Z000000P8m4SAC&l=en-US) but it definitely wasn't a dependency mapping issue. I tried clearing the compiled cache and building over and over and over and over again to no avail. But, alas, upgrading to 2024Q1 did fix the issue. I am not quite sure what the instability was, but it built with no issues and no changes in 2024Q1. 

Hopefully this helps someone in the future!