kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/14/2010 5:39 AM, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Let me see if I got all the bits in your description:
> 
> "default" field names:
> - are hard-coded (or equivalent) into KiCad,
> - can be overridden by "wanted" or "user-defined" field names.
> 
> "wanted" aka "template" field names:
> - are assigned by a global (user-wide or even site-wide) configuration,
> - are also carried in a symbol (.lib file),
> - override "default" field names in the sense of, say, F2 not being
>   shown when "wanted" field names are defined for F2,
> - if a "wanted" name for a field (e.g., F1) appears in both the global
>   configuration and the symbol file, both are shown in dialogs.
> 
> "user-defined" field names:
> - are something we have today,
> - are assigned on a per-symbol instance basis,
> - are carried in the schematics (.sch file),
> - override "wanted" field names.
> 
> I think you didn't mention the case of per-symbol field names, which
> I suppose would still be around.
> 
> A few questions:
> 
> - which of the up to two "wanted" field names would a user-defined
>   field replace ? Or would it be shown (in dialogs) in addition to
>   the "wanted" names ?
> 
> - you mentioned visibility (in schematics) options. If the "wanted"
>   field names and the user-defined field name disagree on the
>   visibility, who wins ?
> 
> - would "wanted" fields also be carried in schematics (.sch file),
>   much like "user-defined" fields get copied from symbols into their
>   instances in schematics ?
> 
> - what happens if content with the same purpose gets assigned to
>   different fields ? E.g., if a a symbol you import has "manu1" or
>   "manufacturer" in F3 while your company uses "manufacturer" in
>   F4.
> 
> - could one also create a "wanted" field in a symbol (.lib file)
>   explicitly for the purpose of export, without having to change
>   the local global (duh) configuration ?
> 
>   Likewise, could one strip "wanted" fields for export ?
> 
> Regarding names, it seems that "wanted" aka "template" would reflect
> conventions at the level of an organization. This also highlights
> the issues one may have to consider when crossing organization
> boundaries.
> 
> I'm not so sure having this type of organizational fields in the
> schematics is really a good idea. The examples you gave
> (manufacturer, vendor (= distributor ?), even cost) are all things
> that generally should not be part of schematics.

I like being able to embed this information into my schematics.  By
embed I mean create a hidden field so it doesn't clutter my schematic.
I can create a complete bill of materials (BOM) for each project.  If I
am careful, I can create a BOM which can be imported into a inventory
control system (or any other program that can import CSV) with minimal
effort.  I could use an external file and merge this information with a
BOM containing the default field information but this is extra work and
error prone.  Having a template of field names for every project I
create guarantees that I have the exact same fields defined for every
component.

Wayne

> 
> So, I wonder if this is really going in the right direction. But
> maybe I misunderstood the use case ?
> 
> Regarding names, if I got the use case right, could something like
> "organization-specific" and "component-specific" make the purpose
> clearer ?
> 
> - Werner
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>