Include existing items in flat sequence

[xdaf]

Let's assume I must do three (or more) operations in sequence (in the following example, instrument control operations)

There are several ways to force execution order. But I want to use a flat sequence (for example, in order to insert timing VIs).

My goal is the following:

There are at least two problems:

- if I try to include the first VI on a flat sequence, other VI's wires will appear "beneath" the sequence (not throug)

- If I add a frame afterwards, there's no way to include existing code without redrawing the wires.

I propose two possible solutions:

- Create a flat sequence for each VI, and add the possibily to combine them in a single sequence afterwards.

- Create a flat sequence for the first VI, add a frame after, and allow the "drag edge" action to "fagocitate" existing code (instead of pushing existing code to the right, or extending above the code if AUTO-GROVE is disabled).

Anyway, when there's a wire running beneath a structure, the possibility to "let him through the structure" (by adding tunnels) should be added as well.

[GerdW]

I would add a 3rd solution:

Add the (right-click) option to split frames with a movable splitter...That way you draw a sequence around all code that goes inside and split into frames afterwards.

Oh, wait, some more notes on the same topic:

- Add the (right-click) option to join two (or more) sequence structures.

- Add the option to split a sequence structure by right-click on inter-frame border.

Well, I don't use sequences a lot, both these are features I miss from time to time...

Message Edited by GerdW on 11-11-2009 06:43 PM

Message Edited by GerdW on 11-11-2009 06:44 PM

[xdaf]

Good point, your proposed 3rd solution would fit my needs as well

[RoyA]

Guess I'm missing something here.  Why not just use your error wire to force the sequence of operations and not use a flat sequence at all?

[RavensFan]

Maybe, but there might be good programmatic reasons not to run a single error wire through the 3 VI's.  Let's say you don't want an error on the top wire to cause the VI on the 2nd wire to fail to execute.  You only want that affected by what is on the 2nd error wire.  And that 2nd error wire you want to tunnel through the rest of the sequence (rather than going to the 3rd VI) because you want that error to have an effect on something in particular like a Close, or Read VI.

To put it more simply, you might have 3 different activities going on and you want to maintain a sequence such as DAQ, serial, and File I/O.  They each have their own error chain and you don't want the errors from the three to intermingle with each other.

[xdaf]

Correct.

Furthermore, as explained on the first post, sometimes I need to force execution timing, for example by inserting a "wait" vi (for example, my DUT takes 300ms to settle its output after receiving any stimulus).

Message Edited by xdaf on 12-14-2009 10:23 AM

[Darren]

Any idea that has received less than 10 kudos within 10 years after posting will be automatically declined.