ni
Status Code -50405
Hi Senior
I'm experiencing 50405 occurred when reading. The task only created once when app launch. and then reading io status when ever I want. It runs many times perfectly. but sometimes occurs that error. my nidaqmx version is 0.7.0. I would like to update the version. but this equipment is in the other country. I'm worried about other side effects. Could somebody help Thanks in advance
task_in = nidaqmx.Task() task_in.di_channels.add_di_chan('Dev1/port0/line0:7', line_grouping=LineGrouping.CHAN_PER_LINE) task_in.di_channels.add_di_chan('Dev1/port1/line0')
'call task_in.read() frequently'
Update: NI said that it's related to USB power. I already used an independent USB port. Would It be helpful if I close task and re-create task regularly ? https://knowledge.ni.com/KnowledgeArticleDetails?id=kA00Z0000019MucSAE&l=zh-TW
Not nearly enough information to help you. Some questions:
- What version of NI-DAQmx driver is installed? Try running this example: system_properties.py
- What device is "Dev1"?
- What does your actual code look like? Just paste it all.
- What Operating System are you using?
nidaqmx.errors.DaqError: -50405: No transfer is in progress or transfer was aborted.Task Name: _unnamedTask<X>Status Code: -50405
The only way to recover is to physically disconnect and reconnect the USB-6009 device.
Environment
-
Python Version:
3.11.9 -
nidaqmx Package Version:
1.2.0 - NI-DAQmx Driver Version: 2024 Release (exact version number not specified)
- Operating System: Windows 10 64-bit
- Hardware: NI USB-6009
Additional Information
- I have double-checked my task configuration parameters (sample rate, number of samples to read, etc.) and they seem correct.
- The issue is intermittent and not easily reproducible on demand.
- Restarting the Python script without unplugging the device does not resolve the issue. A physical reconnection is required.
Has anyone else encountered this specific issue with the USB-6009 and found a solution? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
The issue's discussion is continued over at #893 due to high similarity to it and the information here is stale and insufficient.
@keith331 @wanghuqiang123
