DQMH Consortium Toolkits Feature Requests

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Petru_Tarabuta

Small improvement to request VIs: move Bundle By Name and typedef cluster constant inside the False case

Status: Declined

Hello Petru,

Thank you for your engagement with DQMH and for submitting your feature request. After careful consideration and discussion with the DQMH Consortium, we have decided not to move forward with its implementation at this time due to budgetary constraints.

Additionally, based on our analysis, the feature would offer limited value, as the False case is executed more frequently in most scenarios.

We appreciate your understanding and continued support of DQMH.

Best regards,

Currently on the block diagram of VIs that implement Request events, the Bundle By Name node and associated typedef cluster constant are located outside of the case structure, even though their output is used only by the False case of the case structure (and not by the True case). The screenshot below shows the unmodified "Do Somthing.vi" VI.

Petru_Tarabuta_0-1701638967912.png

 

The code would be slightly cleaner if the BBN and typedef constant were moved inside the False case of the event structure. This follows the clean code rule that if an action is relevant only to one case of a case structure, then it should be located inside that case. The code would then look like below.

Petru_Tarabuta_1-1701639034664.png

 

Thanks!

3 Comments
drjdpowell
Trusted Enthusiast

Just an aside, but the thing that I most notice from the images is that it follows the test-validity-before-use strategy of handling references that may become invalid.  That strategy can suffer from a small race condition of the reference dying between test and use.  A safer strategy is try-then-handle-failure, which in this case is to try and send the Event, then handle the error if it was invalid.

mbaudot
Active Participant
Status changed to: Declined

Hello Petru,

Thank you for your engagement with DQMH and for submitting your feature request. After careful consideration and discussion with the DQMH Consortium, we have decided not to move forward with its implementation at this time due to budgetary constraints.

Additionally, based on our analysis, the feature would offer limited value, as the False case is executed more frequently in most scenarios.

We appreciate your understanding and continued support of DQMH.

Best regards,



Matthias Baudot | Software Architect | Founder at STUDIO BODs | DQMH® Consortium Board Member


STUDIO BODs     BLT for LabVIEW     LabVIEW Champion     Certified Professional Instructor     DQMH Trusted Advisor     GCentral Sponsor


 Check out my LabVIEW presentations and videos!

Petru_Tarabuta
Active Participant

Hi Matthias,

 

That's ok. Thanks for the explanation.

 

Kind regards,
Petru