App Builder and Saving VI's

[Mr._Jim]

Hi All,

I'm trying to automate a few builds using some scripting. Each executable I'm compiling consecutively uses the same VI's with different "compile options" enabled. (They're configured with various components enabled and disabled.) So here's my question: Do I have to save the "dirty" VI's on disk between compiling executables, or will App Builder use the VI's as-is from within memory? Based on results I've observed, I'm guessing that the latter is true, but I want to be absolutely sure because I'm building releases.

By the way, in this instance I'm using LabVIEW 8.6.1 for Windows.

Thanks,

Jim

[gmart]

If a VI is in memory and it is the source VI for a particular builds specification, the in-memory changes will be used when building.

While this is true, you will lose the changes you applied in memory once the VI is closed. You could then end up with a condition where the build specification for a particular application has settings that will not generate the output you desire unless other code (scripts, etc.) are run. 

I'm not sure what "compile options" you are talking about but there are many settings that can be applied at build time. Most of these can be found in the Source File Settings page.

[Mr._Jim]

Hi George,

Thanks for getting back to me.  So this is how I'm implementing my "compile options" (they're not really compile options in the true sense):  I use project-scoped conditional disable symbols to enable or disable certain parts of the code.  Depending on the target or use of the executable I'm building, I programatically change those symbols.  I then proceed to build that particular executable.  Each release has three or four executables and installers, so it's a time consuming prospect - one where automation makes a lot of sense to me.

Based on what you said, it sounds like what I'm doing will work.  There didn't seem to be an easy way to save all dirty project items, so I was hoping to avoid the effort.

Does it still sound like this will work as intended?

Thanks very much,

Jim