kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Chris Pavlina <pavlina.chris@xxxxxxxxx>]

You do realize that symbols are made and used by different people,
right? The person placing a symbol in the schematic DOESN'T KNOW that
the dumbass library designer put a hidden pin in it. They just wonder
why ERC is complaining about a connection somewhere where there is no
pin (that they can see).

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 01:46:17PM +0100, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote:
> I think having a pins function changing depending on its relative position
> to other pins is more confusing, especially if it is toggled by a checkbox
> saying "visible".
> 
> In that case a some kind of indication is better. Not changing the
> connectivity of the pin by hardcoded logic.
> 
> It seems to me this is still an issue that can be fixed by the ERC or
> checking manually. Not using the ERC is also bad practice, and reworking
> this way is just enforcing two bad behaviours.
> 
> To me every no-connect pin should not be able to be connected. Not depending
> on its visibility.
> 
> - Kristoffer
> 
> On 2017-02-07 13:22, Chris Pavlina wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 01:15:43PM +0100, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote:
> >>I think the aim then should be to inform about this. I see the "invisible"
> >>checkbox as being just that, it makes the pins invisible, but still
> >>connected.
> >>
> >>Shouldnt this be a warning issue for the ERC, connecting to an invisible pin
> >>that is not stacked?
> >>
> >>And as you said, you had to clean out parts that had invisible pins that
> >>that was supposed not to be connected. Fault of creating the symbol, I think
> >>the symbol should be reworked instead of hardcoding around faulty symbols.
> >>
> >>There are many silly ways of using stuff, I dont agree that having a
> >>visibility checkbox determining if it is connectable is the right way,
> >>rather have a pop-up warning that says that you have connected to an
> >>invisible pin.
> >
> >...you don't think kicad has enough popup warnings /yet/?! Are you
> >kidding?
> >
> >The feature is confusing, it should be reworked to be less confusing.
> >Not leave it confusing and yell at the user when he gets confused.
> >
> >>
> >>- Kristoffer
> >>
> >>On 2017-02-07 12:50, Chris Pavlina wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:44:45PM +0100, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote:
> >>>>I wasnt saying its a good idea, but having invisible pins indicates that you
> >>>>want to connect to something that is not visible, its literaly there in the
> >>>>name. An invisible pin.
> >>>
> >>>I have seen numerous parts made by people who clearly don't get that, as
> >>>they think invisible pins are a nice way to represent no-connect pins
> >>>visibly in libedit that don't show up in and clutter the schematic. Just
> >>>had to clean a bunch of those out of my own library that someone
> >>>submitted, and someone else said the official KiCad libs have a bunch
> >>>too. Not sure why you think it's so obvious when actual usage shows it's
> >>>not.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I mean, otherwise there could be a stacked pin instead. Im not saying that
> >>>>invisible pins are good practise, but thats not really for me to say.
> >>>>
> >>>>What is silly is having invisible pins working as no-pins except if they are
> >>>>a stacked pin, well that doesnt sound clear to me.
> >>>
> >>>What's silly is using them that way when you could just hide the pin
> >>>text. It's only the text that collides and makes them look bad.
> >>>
> >>>Compromise: don't connect invisible pins of type "no connect". Remove
> >>>the stupidity in the design without screwing the people who depended on
> >>>it.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>-Kristoffer
> >>>>
> >>>>On 2017-02-07 12:33, Chris Pavlina wrote:
> >>>>>Honestly I think that's one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Pins
> >>>>>that you can't see should make connections that you can't see to wires
> >>>>>that you can? The ONLY imaginable use case for this is stacks of pins.
> >>>>>Every other possible case is a mistake.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 11:09:44AM +0100, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote:
> >>>>>>Honestly I think the invisible pins are supposed to work exactly as they
> >>>>>>are, that they should be able to connect, otherwise there are the "no
> >>>>>>connect" - pin type or the option of just removing the pin from the symbol
> >>>>>>altogether.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>- Kristoffer
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On 02/07/2017 10:02 AM, Oliver Walters wrote:
> >>>>>>>Kristoffer this is good feedback. I did not expect this to get pushed
> >>>>>>>straight away, and perhaps there is a way forward that won't break
> >>>>>>>schematics.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Relying on implicit connected that is *not* displayed on the schematic
> >>>>>>>seems like a very bad idea to me.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I appreciate your use case (I currently have a few symbols that do that
> >>>>>>>too).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Kristoffer Ödmark
> >>>>>>><kristofferodmark90@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:kristofferodmark90@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This seems dangerous, I have seen a few design where there are 5-10
> >>>>>>> pins hidden under the same pin, excpecting them to be connected.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I would rather this hidden connections were indicated in some way,
> >>>>>>> this change disconnects lines and might break some users
> >>>>>>> footprints-symbols connection.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Kristoffer
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 02/07/2017 09:47 AM, Oliver Walters wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>     Hi all,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>     The attached patch prevents invisible pins from being connected
> >>>>>>>     using
> >>>>>>>     the wire tool in eeschema.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>     a) If you connect a wire endpoint to the same position as a pin
> >>>>>>>     endpoint, they are NOT connected visually
> >>>>>>>     b) Wires and insivible pins are also ignored during netlist creation
> >>>>>>>     c) This does not affect the ability of invisible power-pins to
> >>>>>>>     automatically connect to global power labels
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>     Is the current behavior of connecting invisible pins to wire
> >>>>>>>     endpoints
> >>>>>>>     desired? Or is it just an aberration?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>     If there is a very good reason that pins not visible in the
> >>>>>>>     schematic
> >>>>>>>     are able to be connected silently?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>     before: http://i.imgur.com/3gModvW.png
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>     after: http://i.imgur.com/r8O7c3Y.png
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>     (Note the 'dangling' wire-end indication)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>     Cheers,
> >>>>>>>     Oliver
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>     _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>     Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >>>>>>>     <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers>
> >>>>>>>     Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>     <mailto:kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>     Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >>>>>>>     <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers>
> >>>>>>>     More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >>>>>>>     <https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>  -Kristoffer
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >>>>>>> <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers>
> >>>>>>> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>> <mailto:kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >>>>>>> <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers>
> >>>>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >>>>>>> <https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>--
> >>>>>>-Kristoffer
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>>>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