Jump to content

Self-altering code bug, another type


Recommended Posts

This is a Labview 8 editing bug along the same lines as my previous post. I made it a new topic because it is a different VI attachment. Please read the note on the VI diagram. Thanks for trying it out.

Another nice example of an anaomaly of the LV editor. I can reproduce you finding.

Unexpected, too, if you delete the wire connecting the input tunnel of the TRUE case with the unbundle, signals sig.b. and ref.b remain valid without any data input. Well, the run arrow becomes broken.

Further, deleting any wires from within the Loop structure will not cripple the Unbundle's signal names.

I wonder what would be the LV developer's comment (Greg?).

Thomas

Link to comment
Another nice example of an anaomaly of the LV editor. I can reproduce you finding.

Unexpected, too, if you delete the wire connecting the input tunnel of the TRUE case with the unbundle, signals sig.b. and ref.b remain valid without any data input. Well, the run arrow becomes broken.

Further, deleting any wires from within the Loop structure will not cripple the Unbundle's signal names.

I wonder what would be the LV developer's comment (Greg?).

Thomas

I brought both of these issues to NI's attention under service request # 734039.

I will update if I learn more.

Ben

Link to comment
Confirmed by NI.

A CAR will be filled.

Ben

This should be the last update for now. The following quotes came from NI support.

"

I wanted to let

you know that I filed that CAR for you -- it's already been passed to

a developer. Thanks for keeping us on our toes!

"

and re:the CAR#

"... it's 3QPET23Q."

As far as I know this is the first confirmed bug for the released version of LV 8.

So...

Congratulations Joe for your shiny new CAR!

Ben

Link to comment
  • 4 months later...
  • 4 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...
I tried it in LV 8.2 and, yes, it's fixed. Great news!!! Thanks. That bug has given me trouble for several years.

This is indeed wonderful news. We have been struggling with this (incredibly insidious and dangerous) bug for a long time, in a somewhat different form.:throwpc:

It seemed to rear its ugly head whenever we edited a type def with a similar structure to your example - suddenly the unbundle was unbundling 10 identical signals, not ten separate signals that happened to have the same name but were inside 10 separate sub-clusters.

This alone will likely move us to 8.20 sooner rather than later.

Jaegen

Link to comment
This is indeed wonderful news. We have been struggling with this (incredibly insidious and dangerous) bug for a long time, in a somewhat different form.:throwpc:

It seemed to rear its ugly head whenever we edited a type def with a similar structure to your example - suddenly the unbundle was unbundling 10 identical signals, not ten separate signals that happened to have the same name but were inside 10 separate sub-clusters.

This alone will likely move us to 8.20 sooner rather than later.

Jaegen

I agree and really hated this bug.

This first tim eit hit it involved a cluster where I was limiting the history data loaded for a tag. Instead of loading the data for the last 24 hours, it loadd it FROMTHE BEGINNING OF TIME because istead bundling to the "start time" it was updating the Stop Time twice leaving the start time as 1904. For an application with 500+ VI that kept data from the time it was first started, this resulted in the application taking more time to boot each time it was started.

It was only an error reported by VI Analyzer (Thank you Darren) that flaged my attention.

At that time I attributed the error to myself.

THe second time was a result of a customer calling my up after te4sting one of my changes and asking "BEN, did you even test this thing? It is displaying my RPM in the temperature field."

Ben

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.