why can't i disable autoindex

[shreya005]

Hi I'm trying to use a program similar to the attachment, but i if i try disabling autoindex for the 1-D array, it shows broken wire. the 1-D (sub) array is generated from a csv from the internet and so is the 2-D (sub) array.

[billko]

---

@shreya005 wrote:

Hi I'm trying to use a program similar to the attachment, but i if i try disabling autoindex for the 1-D array, it shows broken wire. the 1-D (sub) array is generated from a csv from the internet and so is the 2-D (sub) array.

---

I think you did it in such a way that the comparison property of the equals node got set to "compare aggregates."  Right-click on the equals sign and reset it to "compare elements."  I got burned by this before.  I ended up simply dropped another equals node and wired it up, but I wanted to know why it happened.  It took me quite a while to figure it out.

[shreya005]

hi both are strings. and it is already set to compare elements. 

[Neos]

No, in the image you shown it is compare aggregates otherwise you should have got array output from equal element.

can you attach your vi.

[chembo]

If the comparison mode is set to compare elements it produces, particularly in this case, a Boolean array. You cannot wire this array directly to the conditional terminal.

I guess, for your example, it will work only if the comparison mode is set to compare aggregates and the autoindexing of the single array tunnel is disabled.

Nick

[shreya005]

basically what the subvi should do is generate an array starting from the current time if the condition is true or else directly read from the csv downloaded from the internet.

[Neos]

can you post it in 2009 version.

[ghighuphu]

Dear shreya005,

the only equal operator in your VI is set to "compare elements". As next, you use the "for all" logical operator. In this case, you can use a single equal operator with "compare agregates" set. So, what is not working here?

I converted the file to LV9, but the lifetimeranges.vi and save_file_from_web.vi files are missing

Things like the following should be moved outside the CASE structure. In case of editing, you edit only one instance.

.

[crossrulz]

If you are going to look to an example, it would help if you actually followed it...