kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Fabrizio Tappero <fabrizio.tappero@xxxxxxxxx>]

​Hi there,​

Just in case somebody does not know what JP means here, I share my personal
​ preference setting​
:

 KiCad - Schematic - Preferences - Schematic Editor Options - Default Fields

​[image: Inline image 1]​

I personally think that JP suggestion is the solution to the basic problem
that Kaspar is talking about. I have to agree however with Kaspar when
 he says that a "MPN" is more meaningful than the
"datasheet" default field.

At the end of the day a schematic is made of components that deserve an
ID or a MPN.

my 2c
Fabrizio





On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 6:01 PM, jp charras <jp.charras@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Le 21/12/2016 à 17:19, Kaspar Emanuel a écrit :
> > Thank you Clemens and Kevin for your responses.
> >
> > Clemens, you raise that you are not happy with hard-coding fields at all
> because there is no
> > standard way to do it. But KiCad’s symbols already come with a datasheet
> field for instance. To me,
> > the datasheet field is way less useful than an MPN field. In any case we
> are trying to come up with
> > a better, standard way to do it, what's the problem with that?
> >
> > You then go on to describe your method and say you have no use case for
> it. That’s fair enough but I
> > think its clean that I and a few other people /do/ have a use case.
> Furthermore, the proposal, if
> > implemented, shouldn’t affect your way of working at all.
> >
> > Kevin, you say that this would not work for generic components like
> resistors and capacitors. I
> > don’t think I was clear enough: the proposal is to add a standard MPN
> field to schematic symbols to
> > be populated /when they are part of a schematic/, i.e. their values (and
> tolerances etc) have been
> > assigned. Really we are talking about the schematic format.
>
> Kaspar,
>
> Adding a new field does not imply a schematic format change.
> You can already add any field to a schematic component or a library
> component (library part)
>
> I don't really understand why you are thinking the schematic file format
> should be modified.
>
> If you want to see a user field always existing in your component editor,
> just add this field name
> and a default value in the schematic editor options (Default fields).
>
> The feature you want is already available since many years in Eeschema.
>
> The spice simulator also uses predefined fields to store simulator
> parameters in lib or in schematic.
> AFAIK, it works without issues, and without any change in schematic file
> format.
>
> For me, the main question is:
> From the point of view of the *schematic editor*, what is the purpose of
> this field?
> (I am not talking about the user point of view)
>
> >
> > Your alternative system is interesting but/is/ a bit more complicated.
> Standardizing on an MPN field
> > is something existing tooling could make use of very quickly but with
> yours they would have to
> > change their way of working quite substantively. I think further
> discussion of your proposal is a
> > separate point and should continue in another thread.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Kaspar
> >
>
> --
> Jean-Pierre CHARRAS
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>