hooovahh Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 So here is a issue that I would consider a bug with VIPM. Lets say I make several small packages with different component level tools in each of them, and then I make a package that is more of a module which uses these smaller packages. If I have the small packages and the large package in my VIPM library, and then choose to install the large package it will realize there are dependencies and install the smaller components that are required. BUT if I only have the large package in my VIPM library, and the smaller component level packages are not added to my VIPM library. Then I can install the large package, but VIPM will not install the smaller component level packages, because it doesn't know they exist. It will install the large package without any errors, but when you go to use the code in LabVIEW it will be missing components. I suggest having VIPM throw an error when there are dependencies that VIPM doesn't have in its library. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Kring Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 Hi Brian, This is a great suggestion! Currently, there are extensive dependency management features in the VI Package Configuration Editor window, when using VI Package Configurations. Currently, however, the main VIPM window does not show missing dependencies. It's definitely on our road map to add dependency management to the main VIPM window. In the interim, please try to use VI Package Configurations for all your LabVIEW projects. Here's the process we recommend: 1) Apply your VI Package Configuration before starting work on a project --> this ensures that you have all the latest packages installed and that there are no missing dependencies. 2) Scan your project for VI Packages, occasionally, when working on a project --> this ensures that you have all the packages being used on your project in your VI Package Configuration. Thanks, -Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crelf Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 To paraphrase (just so I'm sure that I understand): if you try to install a package with external dependancies that aren't already in VIPM's cache, it doesn't display a warning, but instead reports installation successful? I'd call that a pretty major bug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Kring Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 Brian, Can you please tell us whether you see any warning in the Action Confirmation Dialog? I believe (with about 50% certainly) that VIPM does give you an indication that there are missing dependencies in this dialog. The should be grayed out with a status of "not found" (or similar). If it doesn't give this sort of indicator, then, yes, this is a major bug. However, VIPM should still allow you to install a package that has missing dependencies. The use case for this is when you need a VI in a package that doesn't actually have a dependency on the missing package (since it only takes one VI in a package that depends on another package to create a dependency). Thanks, -Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooovahh Posted October 31, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 I figured there would be a use case that you would want the package to be installed without the dependencies, that's why I said I would consider it a bug in VIPM. Below are two screen shots of what I was talking about. The main package is a Finite State machine, and it has a dependency on a package with the name Current Value. The first screen shot was when I wanted to install the Finite State machine package, but didn't have the Current Value package in the VIPM's library (it wasn't in its cache folder) You see that the dependent package is not listed, not grayed out, and there is no indication that it is missing a dependency. Here is the second screen shot where the Current Value package is in VIPM's library (it is listed in the cache folder) I think the user should be allowed to install a package without its dependencies, but if a dependency is missing the user should be notified some how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Kring Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Hi Brian, Thanks for the additional clarification and screenshots. You're 100% right about this -- we've got a bug on our hands. I've filed a bug and added it to the known issues: Known Issue (Case 6125): Installing package with missing dependencies doesn't show warning Thanks, -Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.