Ok simply putting the port group for my custom data type first on the node doesn't change the behavior when exposing the port to a compound as 'multi'... bummer.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:28 PM, Raffaele Fragapane < [email protected]> wrote: > You might also need to add something to the compound xml or an event, I > have very hazy memories of work-arounds and stuff, but that was for > multiple ports bundled into port groups (incidentally something that JUST > came up at work, again, today). > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Steven Caron <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The node behaves as you would expect when you add more port instances and >> when it isn't inside a compound. >> >> The port is defined last, I will try and move it around, but the node is >> so simple I would just be putting it first. The Syflex node I referenced >> has the force ports in the middle. Might be onto something there >> >> My current (not completely tested) work around is to change the port >> definition to support an array instead of instances and put a build array >> node in between the custom node and the exposed port. >> >> Bummer... >> Steven >> >> *written with my thumbs >> On Mar 31, 2015 4:45 PM, "Raffaele Fragapane" < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Does it work if it's outside a compound? >>> >>> I have had some issues with dynamically adding ports to groups, some of >>> them pretty bug smelling, but all of them, including one with custom data >>> types, disappear if the group with dynamic ports is the last one in the >>> definition. You could also try and give that a shot, but it's more of a >>> head in the sand workaround than a fix for anything. >>> >> > > > -- > Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it > and let them flee like the dogs they are! >
