kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Oliver Walters <oliver.henry.walters@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have recently noticed some very strange libedit behaviour, where
performing an action on a pin at a given location performs the same action
on all pins at that same location.

Consider the following examples, where two pins are located in the same x,y
position:

Example A - Edit Pin
- Place two pins in the same position
- Edit one (e.g. Press "E" and clarify selection
- Change anything except for pin number (name,  type, length)
- Hit "ok"
- All pins at that location will be set to the parameters in the window
(except for pin-number)

Example B - Delete pin
- Place two pins in the same position
- Delete one pin (after clarifying selection)
- All pins are deleted

The offending source code is here:

Example A
lib_pin.cpp

Here most functions to edit a given pin act on given pin children of the
parent, which is exposing all the other pins at the same location...


Example B
libeditframe.cpp : 1345

    if( m_drawItem->Type() == LIB_PIN_T )
>
>     {
>
>         LIB_PIN*    pin = (LIB_PIN*) m_drawItem;
>
>         wxPoint     pos = pin->GetPosition();
>
>
>>         part->RemoveDrawItem( (LIB_ITEM*) pin, m_canvas, aDC );
>
>
>>         if( SynchronizePins() )
>
>         {
>
>             LIB_PIN* tmp = part->GetNextPin();
>
>
>>             while( tmp != NULL )
>
>             {
>
>                 pin = tmp;
>
>                 tmp = part->GetNextPin( pin );
>
>
>>                 if( pin->GetPosition() != pos )
>
>                     continue;
>
>
>>                 part->RemoveDrawItem( (LIB_ITEM*) pin );
>
>             }
>
>         }
>
>
>>         m_canvas->Refresh();
>
>     }
>
>
Here we have LIB_PIN* item 'pin' which we can delete but then we go through
and delete all the other pins in the same spot?




a) Is this desired? It doesn't intuitively seem like desired behaviour from
a user perspective
b) Why is the code handled in such a convoluted manner here?
c) I would offer a fix but given how strange the code seems I shall await
information on a) and b) in case I am missing some intended feature.

Regards,
Oliver