Let the user choose the probe location on a wire

[X.]

Ther are 10 pages of suggestions coming up when typing "probe location on wire".

AFAIK, none of them addresses this irritating behavior of probes:

The probe icon will snap to some algorithmically determined location which might result in illegible data flow during debugging, or might end up in a region of the diagram far from where the critical action takes place.

I know that what matters should be the VALUE of the probe, but WHEN to check the probe value is also critical, and in a visual development environment, this time is determined by monitoring the data flow (among other methods). This is where this uncontrollable probe location can be annoying at times.

My suggestion: just as for labels, let the user choose the location of a probe anchor point on a wire (especially when it branches off).

[Manzolli]

Joint this this idea with this one Probe switcheroo

[X.]

I never have needed to switch probes, but have found the rigidity of probe positioning annoying in most use case.

[Manzolli]

Neither I. But move from one wire to another I had many times. Now you should create a new and delete the old one.

[JonP]

@X: Would being able to place a probe on any icon terminal (maybe as well as on a wire) solve your problem? As you say, often you are interested in what values are being passed into or out of a particular icon.

This might also have the added benefit of allowing you to see what value an unwired output terminal is producing - something I seem to need to see surprisingly often!

[X.]

The illustration shows no terminal at all. So no, it wouldn't help.

Regarding what you are referring to, there is an idea around here about showing terminals as FP objects that would solve this request.

I want to point out that there is a work around for the issue of wandering probes, but not elegant or practical enough that it eliminates the need to work on a fix: drop a sequence around the location you want the probe at and create the probe inside the sequence.

It is extra work and might not work in a cramped diagram, but is better than having to chase probes around the diagram...

[JonP]

Which illustration? There are at least a couple:

1. Your original posting. Here you say "If I am interested in checking the value on a wire, say, before a quotient and remainder function (like the one cropped off in the bottom right)" In this case the logical place to place a probe would be on the input terminal of the quotient and remainder function.

2. The 27th April diagram. here you say "This is where I want to focus my debugging efforts", with an arrow pointing at a terminal on a sequence structure.

It's just that it seems to me that a point somewhere on a wire is rarely where anybody wants to "focus debugging efforts" - wires don't produce interesting data, it's functions, structures and VI calls that do that.

[X.]

To clarify: as they are currently designed, placing a probe anywhere else than on an isolated piece of wire would result in part of the code being hidden. VI or function connectors, etc, would be the worst possible location. Sorry if the arrows I used seemed to imply that I suggested the probe to be located at the tip of the arrows.

I agree with your last sentence, but again, considering the large diagram footprint of current probes, I would prefer to have complete freedom as to where to place the probe.