Bug with "Mark Existing Items..." dialog

[GregSands]

In the case where a project contains a file from a newer version of LabVIEW, clicking the "Mark Existing Items" button does not open the dialog, but without showing an error either.  Observed in LV2012 and LV2014 - of course there is no later file version than 2015 so I cannot tell if it still exists there but I would presume so.  The best solution would be to ignore such files and open the dialog, failing that would be to show the reason for not opening the dialog.

In general a project should not contain such a file, but this occurred with an auto-populating folder.  Took a little while to track down 🙂

[Mr._Jim]

Hi Greg,

It sounds like you're talking about this button?

Jim

[Mr._Jim]

For what it's worth, and since no one else has replied yet, I was able to reproduce it.

I added a LV2015 VI to a 2012 project. (No auto-populating folder)

I then pressed the "Mark Existing Items..." button in the Project Properties window. The dialog appears momentarily and closes without any perceptible error handling.

[GregSands]

Yes, that's the one.  Sorry I thought I had mentioned where the button was, but you've got it right.  As you say, the bug occurs when any VI from a newer version has been added, but the auto-populating folder was just the situation I encountered where that occurred without knowing about it.

[GregSands]

So what is the process for assigning a CAR to this?

[altenbach]

Make sure to post a link to this discussion in the monthly bug thread.

[GregSands]

OK, I thought that happened after assigning a CAR, but I guess not.  Done.

[altenbach]

---

@GregSands wrote:

OK, I thought that happened after assigning a CAR, but I guess not.  Done.

---

The bug thread was originally created to point NI to dicussions of bugs. A CAR can later be filled in by a moderator. It is a central repository of links pointing to discussion of issues that are most likely software bugs and not caused by user errors. As soon as a discussion gravitates to a consesus that we are dealing with a bug, a link to it should be made in the monthly bug thread.

(A fraction of users thought that it should instead be used by NI to post new CARs, but that is not the correct usage and pretty useless.).

[Jacobson-ni]

Created CAR 560091 "Mark Existing Items..." Project Property Fails if VI from a Newer LabVIEW Version is in Project for this behavior

---

@altenbach wrote:

(A fraction of users thought that it should instead be used by NI to post new CARs, but that is not the correct usage and pretty useless.).

---

I am really not sure what should be posted there. I usually reply with CARs that I create from forum posts but if that is unncessary I will stop (I've been making it up as I go on the forums here).

[altenbach]

Yes, CARs should be posted there too, of course. Sometimes the posts can be edited by a moderator to fill in the CAR later or you could just add another post as you did. That's good! 😄

I imagine the following typcial timeline:

1. There is a post in the forum describing some unexplained behavor.
2. Sometimes it is due to a user error or misunderstaning, not a bug. End of story.
3. Once a few experiencd users confirm that it is likely due to a real bug, a note should be made in the monthly bug thread to alert the blue guys 🙂
4. Once as CAR has been established, the CAR should be noted in the bug thread and in the original discussion.
5. If there are further details or new workarounds, they should also be mentioned in the discussion thread.

(Sometimes CARs get posted in the bug thread out of the blue, e.g. from a private service request about an issue that has not been discussed anywhere in public. This should not be done in my opinion. Some CARs are not of general interest. It should exclusively contain CARs of problems that were identified and discussed in the forum. NI maintains a public list of known issues (example) and it should be up to NI to decide what should be listed there. The monthly bug thread should not degenerate ito a duplicate of the known issues pages.)

Just my opinion... 🙂