Run VI Analyzer checks as part of development/compilation process

[smithd]

First, let me say that I think this is probably in the range of not technically possible right now. Thats fine by me. It is the idea exchange after all. I dont remember seeing a rule that the ideas actually have to be feasible 😉 

Second, I wanted to give a shoutout to a similar idea that solves a similar problem:
http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW-Idea-Exchange/Autorun-VI-Analyzer-when-source-code-control-checks-in...

Obviously I like mine just a smidge better, but honestly I would be happy with either 🙂

My apologies if I missed others or if this is a duplicate.

----------------------------

Basically my idea is this. Right now, LabVIEW gives you errors and warnings as you write your code. Then you finish and you get a shiny happy run arrow with no further feedback. In my opinion, that feedback should continue and it should continue as part of the core IDE, not as an addon (VI Analyzer) you need to run.

So far I've come up with two ideas I like:

1) Vi analyzer auto-inserts, as your code compiles, errors that crop up

2) The idea I like less is that there is a new button off to the side which tells you what VI analyzer thinks of your code. When you click it, you get the familiar pop-up but instead of showing actual errors it shows test failures:

[smithd]

Totally forgot my favorite idea, #3

[Peti]

Kudos!

This would be really useful! (I personally prefer the 2nd idea more.) It will help to create more readable code without using the vi analyzer after coding. And, it can give an immediately feedback, that, for example, you may have a race condition, or misspelled names (but, give a good dictionary to the spell checker, and include a possibility to switch it off, badly created spell checkers can be annoying...)

[smithd]

Ah yeah, thats a good idea as well--maybe it should be separate? But a way to permanently (or as close as we can come to it) ignore a specific instance of an error. Very useful for spell checks, but even outside of spelling VI Analyzer gets it wrong a lot of the time. Don't get me wrong I'd rather it be overzealous than under-, but it'd be nice to ignore the things it is mistaken about...

unless that is already a feature I am just unaware of?