Find Item With No Callers

[Antoine Chalons]

Hi,

I was trying to make a VI that scans a project to find VIs that are no longer used (or dynamically called ).

I though my job was done when I found the property "Find Item With No Callers" but when I ran my VI... no luck... see screenshot below.

Does it mean I will have to get the reference of all the items in my project and use the "callers" properties to find those with no callers ?

I'm not being lazy... I just wouldn't like to re-invent the wheel .. plus the help for "Find Item With No Callers" says it might not be private forever...

[lvb]

QUOTE

Does it mean I will have to get the reference of all the items in my project and use the "callers" properties to find those with no callers ?

I'm not being lazy... I just wouldn't like to re-invent the wheel .. plus the help for "Find Item With No Callers" says it might not be private forever...

You need to obtain a reference to the Root of the Project and then read the ProjectItem "Find Items with No Callers"

See below:

[Aristos Queue]

And, just to be explicit, the behavior of that private method *will* be different in a future version of LV than it is today. There's a reason it was private for the moment. You have been warned.

[Antoine Chalons]

QUOTE (brianafischer @ Oct 28 2008, 05:09 AM)

You need to obtain a reference to the Root of the Project and then read the ProjectItem "Find Items with No Callers"

See below:

Cool, thanks for the hint !

QUOTE (Aristos Queue @ Oct 28 2008, 06:30 AM)

And, just to be explicit, the behavior of that private method *will* be different in a future version of

LV

than it is today. There's a reason it was private for the moment.

You have been warned.

Sure, I merely wanted to know how this method works.

Thanks for the warning.

[Michael Aivaliotis]

QUOTE (Aristos Queue @ Oct 27 2008, 10:30 PM)

And, just to be explicit, the behavior of that private method *will* be different in a future version of LV than it is today. There's a reason it was private for the moment. You have been warned.

Ya, but it works right now... besides, that's why it's in the rusty nails forum. :thumbup:

[Variant]

QUOTE (Michael_Aivaliotis @ Oct 28 2008, 08:25 AM)

Ya, but it works right now... besides, that's why it's in the rusty nails forum. :thumbup:

I dont find this property. Can you tell me which version of LabVIEW is that?

[Francois Normandin]

QUOTE (Variant @ Oct 28 2008, 03:46 PM)

I dont find this property. Can you tell me which version of LabVIEW is that?

You're in a very dangerous subsection of this site... Please read this

http://forums.lavag.org/VI-Scripting-Readme-First-t1207.html''>http://forums.lavag.org/VI-Scripting-Readme-First-t1207.html' target="_blank">http://forums.lavag.org/VI-Scripting-Readme-First-t1207.html

[Aristos Queue]

QUOTE (Michael_Aivaliotis @ Oct 28 2008, 02:25 AM)

Ya, but it works right now... besides, that's why it's in the rusty nails forum. :thumbup:

Ah, but sometimes I think some people get lax because so many of our private functions don't change for a long time, or ever, and it is easy to assume that rusty nail will always be there. This one I know code has been actively worked on so it will return different results than it does today in some cases. I figured it was worth the explicit warning.

[Variant]

Guys I have scripting enabled for my version. Still i dont find it. Which version of LabVIEW. Is this node in LV 7.1 Scripting enabled.

[Yair]

LabVIEW 7.1 did not have the project environment and therefore does not have this property. If you want to scan a folder for VIs which aren't used, you can try searching LAVA for old posts by E. Blasberg. One of them should have a tool for finding unused VIs.

[Variant]

I have scripting Enabled for labVIEW 8.2.1 Still I dont find It. What Could be the Reason?

[Yair]

I can easily think of two options:

1. The method didn't exist back then.

2. You only think you have access to scripting enabled. In 8.x NI locked scripting access behind the license engine and the INI keys do not work like they did in 7.x. You can look through this forum for some workarounds, but nothing is guaranteed.