Jump to content

Jim Kring

JKI Team
  • Posts

    2,200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    105

Posts posted by Jim Kring

  1. Hi All,

    There is a VIPM 20203 release candidate available here:

    vipm-2023Q3-rc2-windows

    Some of the Fixes and Improvements:

    - VIPM now works with any LabVIEW Runtime greater than or equal to 20.1, to simplify installation process and avoid installing older versions of LabVIEW runtime if a newer version is installed (VIPM previously required exactly version 20.1 of the LV Runtime)
    - Fix Issue #25 affecting various user input dialogs (e.g. palette item renaming caused the dialog to get stuck and not close)
    - Improved package building in LabVIEW 2017-2019 (some improvements make for packages saved in LV 2020 and greater were back-propagated to work with older LabVIEW versions)
    - Speed-up of VIPM startup time for first launch after installation (installer now includes a cache of package info of latest versions of public packages)

    Please let us know if you run into any issues.

  2. I think I know what's going on here...

    Overview of the Problem

    The package's pre/post install/uninstall custom actions didn't know about a versioning convention change in LabVIEW 2022 Q3 (see the "More Details..." section below).

    The Error 7 is because the package's install action is looking in the wrong folder (the "22.3" folder doesn't exist -- it should be using the "22.0" folder).

    Wrong Folder Location (that package install action is using):

    C:\Program Files\National Instruments\Shared\Example Finder\1.0\Products\LabVIEW\22.3

    Correct Folder Location:

    C:\Program Files\National Instruments\Shared\Example Finder\1.0\Products\LabVIEW\22.0


    More Details on the Versioning Convention Change
    Starting LabVIEW 2022, LabVIEW uses a YEAR and QUARTER versioning scheme (e.g. 22.3 -> 2022 Q3), however any folders on disk should assume that the decimal digit is zero.

    For example, in LabVIEW 2023 Q1 and LabVIEW 2023 Q3 (probably going to be released in the future....) the folder names should use "23.0" instead of "23.1" or "23.3".

    I'll ping NI and see what's the best fix.

  3. Hi Youssef,

    If you have the TPLAT installed can you see if you're able to deactivate your add-on using the VI-based API?

    Perhaps one of the parameters is not correct.

    My initial thought is to try removing the XML tags ("<RSAKeyValue>" etc) and only use the key ("3JuX...")

    Otherwise, I'm not sure how to begin debugging that error message.

    -Jim

  4. I also now see your point about context.

    A label such as "Library (.lvlib) file to bind with license (located in your source)" only makes sense if you're binding the license at build time.

    If you have already bound the library to a license then the label should be something like "Library (.lvlib) file that is already bound to license (located in your source)"

    We'll need to think more about the best way to fix this so that it makes sense for users.

  5. I see your point about having a tick/checkbox to enable licensing & activation.

    FYI, I think that the the package builder supports building packages with lvlib's that are already bound to a license file -- you then have to uncheck the tick for "Bind license to library at build time (Recommended)"

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.