How to keep the number assigned to a specific node consistent in VAD?

[RSun9]

Hi there,

I am experimenting my OpenVX graph in VAD, adding nodes one by one, and generating code for the modified graph.

When I add a new node into my graph, sometimes that causes the node number of an existing one to change. I don't like this unintended change, as it obscures the real change that I made -- the added new node.

In VAD, Is there a way to keep the numbers assigned to the existing nodes consistent? I tried to manually edit the GraphML ID of a node, but couldn't change it.

Thanks,

Robby

[Stav_S_Intel]

Hi Robby,

You cannot change the ID- however, you can Change the kernel Name to something that is not obscure,helping you identify it in the code.

 just to make sure i understand, what's currently bothering you is that in the generated code the number attached to the node name changes? 

Or is it the GraphML ID that is not presented in the generated code? 

Regards,

Stav

[RSun9]

Hi Stav,

It is the number attached to the node name in the generated code that bothers me. When I make incremental changes in the VAD graph, I want that incremental change to be reflected in the generated code. Changing the number attached to an existing node obscures the actual change.

-Robby

[Stav_S_Intel]

Hi Robby,

Yes- i understand and agree. 

I will consult with the developing team on how we fix this for future releases. 

Thanks for helping us improve,

Stav

[RSun9]

Hi Stav,

Thanks for the understanding. I'd like to push it a bit further ;-)

What I really wanted is the flexibility that lets a developer change the default number attached to a node. For example, My OpenVX graph has a Gaussian filter to blur an image. In the generated code, that Gaussian node will have a number attached to it.

Later, I edit my graph via VAD, replace the Gaussian filter with a bilateral filter, make other changes, and re-generate the code. To be able to easily identify the changed filter, among other changes, I want the same number that was attached to the Gaussian node to now be attached to the bilateral node.

The flexibility to modify the number attached to a node can achieve that. Does that make sense?

Thanks,

-Robby

[Stav_S_Intel · Accepted solution]

Hi Robby, 

We are more than happy to get ideas and suggestions for improvement! 

I think it's a great idea as developers will know best how to keep the logic of the numbering in a way that will make sense for them in the generated code.

I will definetly suggest that as a solution. 

Thanks,

Stav