[FEATURE]Hide Disabled UDT Members

It would be nice to be able to hide UDT members in the tag browser that have been disabled in the tag editor. I have some UDTs that I need to "trim down" to a few specific members from the standard. It's distracting to have so many symbols next to each of the tags (i.e. override symbol and disabled symbol), and that makes it harder to quickly identify the tags that are still enabled.

If not do this by default, make it an option for the Tag Browser view settings.

IMO, this is (in general) an antipattern and should be avoided. If your tags don't share structural similarities...then should they really be instances of the same UDT? You can just use a well disciplined folder structure to organize the common elements (which certainly should be UDTs).

Not to say that your feature request isn't valid, though. Just my 2 cents :slight_smile:

1 Like

I was thinking the same thing as I typed it. If created correctly, it could use a couple of nested parent data types, but that's not really feasible at the moment.

In this case, we're controlling ~10 VFDs for pumps and have a few vendor VFD pumps that need to be integrated. So, to continue using my templatized views I change the OPC path for the required members, but there are still many other members that are specific to our VFDs/pumps that are not present on the vender VFDs. The rest of the vendor's VFD information is displayed on their local panel and we're not integrating all of that info on the "master" screens.

I concur that this is an anti-pattern. The "trimmed" UDT should be a parent UDT for the "standard" UDT. Views/windows/templates should target that parent's functionality and conditionally accept the additional members of the child UDT as appropriate.


I have actually already implemented a parent and child UDT here as well. The parent being a pump UDT and the child being an extension of the pump UDT adding members specific to a pump with a VFD.

However, as I mentioned in my response to Paul, these vendor supplied control systems don't have all of the members of these UDTs and I still need them to work with my templatized views, so their UDTs must follow the same pattern as my "standard" UDTs. I have 10+ of the "standard" pump/VFD UDTs, and only 3 of these non-standard ones, and even between these non-standard ones they each vary slightly, so making a new UDT for the non-standard case wouldn't really make sense either.