Error Ring Constant missing under 8?

[crelf]

Maybe it's because my eyes are glazed over from too much :beer:, but has the Error Ring Constant been removed from the Functions Palette in 8? Anyone know where it is? This was its' location under 7.1.1:

...and here's the same subPallete under 8:

[Phillip Brooks]

I don't think it's an omission from a menu; if you search the 7.1 help for error ring, you will see a topic "Error Ring Constant". You can click in the topic and place the error ring on the block diagram.

The Error Ring Constant does not appear in the search under 8.0 help :thumbdown: Missing from the palette AND the help. Hmmmmm.....

Update. Googled, and found reference in the 8.0 release notes, page 13:

In LabVIEW 8.0, the error ring constant is not on the Functions

palette. Use a 32-bit signed integer constant instead to enter the error

code that you want.

Now if I just knew the error that I wanted.... :headbang:

[Mike Ashe]

Bad form NI, bad form ...

It would be nice to get them to reverse this, or to give us a nice batch editor for doing our own.

However, you can copy the constant from 7.1 and add it into the menus in 8. I know, we shouldn't have to, but it's a work around.

[Yair]

However, you can copy the constant from 7.1 and add it into the menus in 8.

Although, if there are new errors for 8, that enum won't include them.

[crelf]

Although, if there are new errors for 8, that enum won't include them.

You're absolutely right, although I expect that only a few errors may have been added for LabVIEW 8. (as an aside I very much hope and doubt they would have either replaced any of the existing ones or put them out of order, but stranger things have been known to happen )

In LabVIEW 8.0, the error ring constant is not on the Functions

palette. Use a 32-bit signed integer constant instead to enter the error

code that you want.

Well that's pretty disappointing (of course, unless there's a good reason for it to have gone away - anyone from NI want to chime in? Pleeeeeeease??? )

For those of without LabVIEW 7.1, here's an Error Ring Typedef - just put it on your FP and change it to a constant:

Download File:post-181-1149805384.ctl

[jhoskins]

I know for a fact that some of the error codes changed because they say so in the upgrade notes.

LV 7.1 LV 8.0

20003 20012

20101 20111

20102 20112

20103 20113

20104 20114

This list came from the upgrade notes page 104.

[crelf]

I know for a fact that some of the error codes changed because they say so in the upgrade notes.

LV 7.1 LV 8.0

20003 20012

20101 20111

20102 20112

20103 20113

20104 20114

This list came from the upgrade notes page 104.

:question: I'm not 100% sure I understand your table - are you saying that the 20003 code in LabVIEW 7.1 was changed to 20012 for LabVIEW 8? I wonder why...

Thankfully, the Error Ring only goes up to Error 113

[Mike Ashe]

:question: I'm not 100% sure I understand your table - are you saying that the 20003 code in LabVIEW 7.1 was changed to 20012 for LabVIEW 8? I wonder why...

Thankfully, the Error Ring only goes up to Error 113

For the higher numbers (just some of them, not all, yeech) couldn't we use scripting to make a sparse ring with just a hundred or so at a range? I'm not at a LV 8 machine right now or I'd try something.

[crelf]

For the higher numbers (just some of them, not all, yeech) couldn't we use scripting to make a sparse ring with just a hundred or so at a range? I'm not at a LV 8 machine right now or I'd try something.

I don't know how valuable that would be - I'm more than happy with the little 113 element version, as if what I'm looking for is way above that, then I'm probably going to find it in the LabVIEW help and just wire in an I32 anyway. That said, it does improve code readability...

[Rolf Kalbermatter]

For the higher numbers (just some of them, not all, yeech) couldn't we use scripting to make a sparse ring with just a hundred or so at a range? I'm not at a LV 8 machine right now or I'd try something.

Hmm, if you would want a complete one it would be more something like a few 1000 I'm afraid. And if you only want a subset you open all doors for a fight about which are important:

VISA, IMAQ, Database, Internet Toolkit, IVI, Active X, .Net, etc, etc?

Better don't go down that path ;-)

Rolf Kalbermatter

[Phillip Brooks]

The simple solution is to never make misteaks or allow errers! (only in LabVIEW 8 of coarse)

[gmart]

The old error ring constant listed 112 of our approximately 2000 internal error codes and knew nothing of other error codes that our General Error Handler did (such as GPIB codes).

We chose to remove the old error constant even though we didn't have a replacement ready yet. In the meantime, we recommend that you create your own typedef enum that contains the error codes that are important for your applications.

Will we have a new error constant some day? In the infinitely applicable words of a senior developer: "It would not be unreasonable to assume that we might be working on something like that."

[crelf]

Will we have a new error constant some day? In the infinitely applicable words of a senior developer: "It would not be unreasonable to assume that we might be working on something like that."

Awesome - thanks so much for the update (oh, and for the highly unambiguos hint as well )