Binding UDT parameters


Is it possible to bind an UDT parameter to a tag?

What I want to do is something like this:
( I am writing the UDTs in a c-like syntax)

///// UDTs:
Type Pump (int pumpId) {
   float temp;      //Imagine an alert is set when value>100
   float pressure; //Imagine an alert is set when value>50

Type Station {
   string Name;
   int Type;
   Pump  LeftPump;
   Pump RightPump;

//// Instances:
   Station(LeftPump.pumpId=1,RightPump.pumpId=2) Station1
   Station(LeftPump.pumpId=3,RightPump.pumpId=4) Station2
   Station(LeftPump.pumpId=5,RightPump.pumpId=6) Station3
   //set some values (using the SQLTags tree in the designer)
   Station1.Name="North Station";
   Station2.Name="South Station";
   Station3.Name="East Station";

OK, what I want is the alerting system to report the Station Name, but the “Display Path” field of the alerting configuration only admits static text or parameters (as far as I know).

So, I was wondering if I could pass the value of StationX.Name to a parameter of the pump UDT.

Is it possible? if not, is there any work-around for doing this?

Thank you.

Because the table for alerts is actually indexed on the alert name it isn’t an easy/feasible thing to do right now. This functionality will probably get added when the alarming system gets revamp’d. You’re not the only one who’s asked about this. :wink:

In the example provided, wouldn’t the name never change? That is, binding a parameter would be useful for data that would be changing, but for something like an object’s name, why not just create a String parameter called “name”, and then plug in a reference to that in the display path? When you create the instances, you set the parameter, and you’re done. You have a bit of redundancy in that you’ve named the tag, and also set the name parameter, but if it’s never changing after that, it shouldn’t be too big of a deal.


Hi Colby,

You’re right, this data will not change. I just felt a bit uncomfortable with the redundancy, but it’s not a big deal anyway.

I have not come yet with the need to pass variable data to the UDT, but I guess it might be very useful to have it.

Thank you!


Yes, we definitely expected that it would come up as a request, but we figured we’d hold off until there was stronger demand for dynamic properties. So far, it hasn’t come up much.

However, like gbuehler said, the general idea of making alerting properties more dynamic has come up a lot. We’re going to tackle alerting in the next big update (7.6, which we’re scheduled to start in about 2 weeks).



We’re going to tackle alerting in the next big update (7.6, which we’re scheduled to start in about 2 weeks).

:/ uh, what happened to 7.5?

Oh, I figured I should have made some comment about that… it’s scheduled to wrap up in about 2 weeks :laughing:

It will mostly be just a bunch of usability & behind the scenes type things. We’ve decided to start making ever odd number minor release focused on tackling backlogged requests, while the even ones will be more focused on bigger (new) features.

See. that’s a sensible answer…
I was hoping for “We don’t talk about 7.5, We purged that whole code branch w/ fire and salt, It was enough to drive a man mad…”