Stop Module error handling rationale

[carlod80]

Dear Delacor,

     I am curious to understand why the error handling in the Stop Module VI has been designed as it is now. In particular, see here:

If the Error In carries an error, then the Module Main Info VI will report (incorrectly) that the module is not running, whereas it is, and as a consequence, the Stop Module will not stop the module even if its actually running.

Therefore, to ensure that the module is stopped even in the case of an error, one must first clear incoming errors, place the Stop Module VI, and then merge back the upstream errors.

What is the design decision behind this? Wouldn't it be better if the Module Main Info reported in any case the correct execution status so that the module is safely closed in any case if it was running?

There is probably something trivial I'm not seeing here, please don't bite me!

Thank you!

Carlo

[FabiolaDelaCueva · Accepted solution]

Hi Carlo,

This is a good catch and aligns with the feature request from Brian Powell:

https://forums.ni.com/t5/Delacor-Toolkits-Documents/DQMH-Feature-Requests/tac-p/4033917/highlight/tr...

If you agree with him, please add a Kudo to that idea.

My guess on why we overlooked this is that as we show on the API Tester, we tend to put a clear error before the Stop Module.vi. Given what you describe above and Brian's request. I agree that we should revisit the error handling in the Stop Module.vi

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I have filed DQMH-677 in our system to address this in the next DQMH release.

Thanks for your trust in DQMH and in our team and thanks for bringing this up to our attention. It is feedback like this that continues to make DQMH better.

Regards,

Fab

[carlod80]

Thanks Fab for the quick and clear feedback, and sorry for overlooking the existing feature request (this is the second time you catch me on this... 🙂)! I have placed my kudos as you suggested!

Carlo

[FabiolaDelaCueva]

---

@carlod80 wrote:

Thanks Fab for the quick and clear feedback, and sorry for overlooking the existing feature request (this is the second time you catch me on this... 🙂)! I have placed my kudos as you suggested!

Carlo

---

Nothing to be sorry about! We are looking into a better process to place feature requests. It is easier for me to identify what is new and mention it than it is for you to go and scan all the requests.

Thanks again for reaching out,

Fab