Are there any plans to support adding tags to individual “already created” UDT instances?
This isn’t my exact use case, but say I wanted to have a UDT for a flow meter with gas analysis values. Some meters may have ~15 distinct gas analysis tags where others may only contain a subset of those, if any at all. Right now, if I wanted those to share a similar tag path, I would have all of these points in a UDT and just disable the ones not in use on a instance by instance basis.
The current UDT model also breaks down if field operations personnel decide that a particular facility needs a “one off” tag monitored in Ignition. If the facility were created as an instance of some UDT (even with nested child UDTs), I would have to add the tag to the UDT and disable it on every other instance.
All of these solutions feel clunkier than they need to be. Has anyone figured out a better way to handle this? or, back to the original question, are there any plans to support adding tags to UDT instances?
) is also to allow overriding the UDT typeId of nested UDT instances within a UDT definition. Then, for example for your different gas analysis sets of tags, you could create UDTs for each set and then simply override the nested gas analysis UDT in your flow meter UDT. This would provide a solid structure to use, rather than needing to know which tags to disable and enable for particular flow meters. In the meantime, I would probably create multiple flowmeter derivations (i.e. a basic flowmeter and multiple other UDTs with the basic as the parent) and modify those with your different combinations. It’s a bit crap… but at least it’s easier to tell exactly what type of flowmeters you have.