Michael Aivaliotis Posted October 6, 2007 Report Share Posted October 6, 2007 What's wrong with this picture? Quote Link to comment
Jim Kring Posted October 6, 2007 Report Share Posted October 6, 2007 QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Oct 5 2007, 01:57 PM) What's wrong with this picture? Bold means required input (control) and right side means output (indicator). Quote Link to comment
Michael Aivaliotis Posted October 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2007 Ya, this is a great feature in 8.5 eh? Quote Link to comment
Jim Kring Posted October 6, 2007 Report Share Posted October 6, 2007 QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Oct 5 2007, 02:37 PM) Ya, this is a great feature in 8.5 eh? I'm sure you can get a http://wiki.lavag.org/CAR' Number" title='LabVIEW Wiki article on CAR Number' alt='Wiki article on CAR Number' style="border-bottom: 1px dotted #3366BB; color: #3366BB; cursor:pointer; text-decoration:none;" class="wiki">CAR Number if you try Quote Link to comment
Mark Balla Posted October 7, 2007 Report Share Posted October 7, 2007 QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Oct 5 2007, 04:37 PM) Ya, this is a great feature in 8.5 eh? How did you get LabVIEW to do this and does it work as expected? Quote Link to comment
Aristos Queue Posted October 8, 2007 Report Share Posted October 8, 2007 QUOTE(mballa @ Oct 6 2007, 06:33 AM) How did you get LabVIEW to do this and does it work as expected? Yeah! How did you do that?! When I put together the code for "Inputs req'd by default" for 8.5, I couldn't figure out how to get req'd outputs into the C code. So I'd love to know how you did it from G! Quote Link to comment
Rolf Kalbermatter Posted October 8, 2007 Report Share Posted October 8, 2007 QUOTE(Aristos Queue @ Oct 6 2007, 06:32 PM) Yeah! How did you do that?! When I put together the code for "Inputs req'd by default" for 8.5, I couldn't figure out how to get req'd outputs into the C code. So I'd love to know how you did it from G! I would try to make a control required and then turn it into an indicator. But not sure if that could produce something. It certainly didn't in earlier versions. Rolf Kalbermatter Quote Link to comment
Michael Aivaliotis Posted October 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2007 Here's the VI, bonus to whoever figures it out... and yes, it works as expected. The caller will be broken if this output is not wired. Quote Link to comment
Jim Kring Posted October 9, 2007 Report Share Posted October 9, 2007 QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Oct 7 2007, 03:03 PM) Here's the VI, bonus to whoever figures it out... and yes, it works as expected. The caller will be broken if this output is not wired. Hmmm... required outputs. I could use that. I would make every single error out terminal required. Quote Link to comment
Tomi Maila Posted October 9, 2007 Report Share Posted October 9, 2007 QUOTE(Jim Kring @ Oct 8 2007, 09:37 AM) Hmmm... required outputs. I could use that. I would make every single error out terminal required. I could use required output to force by-reference objects to be properly closed. Quote Link to comment
Yair Posted October 9, 2007 Report Share Posted October 9, 2007 Can this be done using scripting? I don't have 8.5, and if even if I did, I wouldn't know how to turn scripting on, so I can't check. Quote Link to comment
ragglefrock Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 QUOTE(yen @ Oct 8 2007, 03:48 PM) Can this be done using scripting?I don't have 8.5, and if even if I did, I wouldn't know how to turn scripting on, so I can't check. I thought I had it, nevermind.... Quote Link to comment
Aitor Solar Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 QUOTE(yen @ Oct 8 2007, 10:48 PM) Can this be done using scripting? No for what I've seen. Through scripting you can tell LV to set the output wiring rule to required, but it has no effect, just like in 8.2. And I suspect in that case Michael would have put it in Ruty Nails. It must be something like an automatic adaptation where LV bypass that checking... No idea Saludos, Aitor Quote Link to comment
Michael Aivaliotis Posted October 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 I think this will be an interesting thread. Let's try something else: Attached VI is in 8.5 and need TS 4.0 Download File:post-2-1191982523.vi 1 Quote Link to comment
robijn Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Oct 8 2007, 12:03 AM) Here's the VI, bonus to whoever figures it out... and yes, it works as expected. The caller will be broken if this output is not wired. Hey it's great NI implemented this feature ! I've wanted this for years. Indeed forcing error out and objects. I hope it will be selectable in 8.5.1 or whatever version. Probaably the first time NI can remove code from their codebase to add a feature. Joris Quote Link to comment
Michael Aivaliotis Posted October 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 How about detachable event structure nodes? Download File:post-2-1192008950.vi (V8.5) 1 Quote Link to comment
Yair Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Oct 10 2007, 11:36 AM) How about detachable event structure nodes? I remember that one: DetachableStructurePartsEnabled=TRUE. Does that mean the other thing can only be enabled with an INI key? That would seem unlikely, but I can see it happening. Quote Link to comment
Aitor Solar Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Oct 10 2007, 11:36 AM) How about detachable event structure nodes? ¿Can you also detach the output bundler? Saludos, Aitor Quote Link to comment
Aristos Queue Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 QUOTE(robijn @ Oct 10 2007, 03:57 AM) Hey it's great NI implemented this feature ! I suggest that it would be more proper to say "LabVIEW implemented this feature." After all, I can't find any human programmer who has done this, so clearly LV has advanced to the point where it can reprogram itself to advance its own capacities. :ninja: Seriously... I really want to know how this works. We're too far from April Fools for Michael to suddenly say "just kidding." Quote Link to comment
LAVA 1.0 Content Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Oct 10 2007, 11:36 AM) How about detachable event structure nodes? Download File:post-2-1192008950.vi (V8.5) Hello Michael Do you have still no news how you did it? :question: Quote Link to comment
Yair Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 QUOTE(martin@aerodynamics @ Oct 23 2007, 07:55 AM) Do you have still no news how you did it? That one is done using the DetachableStructurePartsEnabled=TRUE INI key. I don't know about the original issue. Quote Link to comment
Aitor Solar Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 QUOTE(Yen @ Oct 23 2007, 07:32 PM) That one is done using the DetachableStructurePartsEnabled=TRUE INI key. No, that doesn't work in LV85. It must be either another INI key or a different approach. That event structure Michael posted is not like the ones LV usually creates, probably an inner (non-exposed) property is modified. Maybe is the same detachable structure he created with that INI key in LV82 or 8 (I can't remember) and now LV85 respects it. In fact, if you dig the properties for the NamedUnbundler (the class name for the Event Data Node), you'll find this: http://lavag.org/old_files/monthly_10_2007/post-1450-1193212531.jpg' target="_blank"> "This flag tells the unbundler that is not allowed to resize to the left (when a new item is elected) nor is it allowed to move left or right." But it doesn't work (though it returns no error). There's something else. Saludos, Aitor Quote Link to comment
Michael Aivaliotis Posted October 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 QUOTE(yen @ Oct 10 2007, 10:45 AM) I remember that one: DetachableStructurePartsEnabled=TRUE. That is not a real ini key. It's a joke. I have no idea where this ini came from but I am not using this. Quote Link to comment
Yair Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Oct 26 2007, 07:10 AM) That is not a real ini key. It's a joke. I have no idea where this ini came from but I am not using this. Hmm, for some reason I was under the impression that I did test this once on 8.x and that it did work, but I guess that impression was wrong. Quote Link to comment
Justin Goeres Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 QUOTE(Yen @ Oct 26 2007, 04:34 AM) Hmm, for some reason I was under the impression that I did test this once on 8.x and that it did work, but I guess that impression was wrong. I was thinking exactly the same thing . I know I had detachable event data terminals working at one point (either 8.0 or 7.1.1), and I could've sworn it was with an INI key. I remember using it, disliking it, and turning it back off. Apparently in the process I also purged my brain of how to do it . What I'm really still dying to know is how the Required Outputs happened. Michael is being awfully coy about that. OK, Mike, how many IOU A BEER AT NIWEEKs is it going to take to get you to reveal your little secret? I'm in for 1. :beer: Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.