Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

2.2.0.26 Distribution Breaks Compilation for Linux RT #60

Closed
agomez08 opened this issue Mar 13, 2019 · 3 comments
Closed

2.2.0.26 Distribution Breaks Compilation for Linux RT #60

agomez08 opened this issue Mar 13, 2019 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@agomez08
Copy link
Contributor

After installing the 2.2.0.26 distribution, compiling an includes that uses the Scan Engine Module will cause the 1502 error.
https://knowledge.ni.com/KnowledgeArticleDetails?id=kA00Z000000P826SAC&l=en-US

Seems to be that this update is somehow calling into add glyphs.vi from the Glyphs Manager.lvlib, seems this is now being included in the dependencies and is the one the compiler is complaining about.

Problem was reproduced in 2 systems, my customer's and mine.

I will look with more detail into the changes to identify the root of the problem.

@SimonRPSM any thoughts?

@agomez08
Copy link
Contributor Author

Found out what the problem was. Seems that we recently added to string array and from string array for Import/Export. These VIs are using classification to display permission.vi and display permission to classification.vi, which for some reason are part of the editor class and are creating the dependency between runtime and editor classes.

image

For new modules we add these 2 VIs in the configuration class, probably to avoid this same problem. I will do the same as a fix for this.

FYI @becega , @SimonRPSM , @jacobson3

@agomez08 agomez08 self-assigned this Mar 13, 2019
@jacobson3
Copy link
Member

@agomezni Good find. New dynamic modules actually have unit tests which check check that the runtime and config don't have editor dependencies but it doesn't look like they were ever added to this module.

I would suggest adding those tests so something similar doesn't happen again.

@jacobson3
Copy link
Member

fixed in #61

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants