kicad-developers team mailing list archive

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

Something I have been considering for a while - instead of hard coding
complex DRC rules into base code, what if we developed a DRC API and write
the rules in Python?

Each rule could be a separate python file (similar to how footprint wizards
are done). Users could enable/disable each DRC and once the framework is in
place, rather than *arguing* over DRC rules in the developer list, the
community can create and perfect as many different checks as they wish.

Each DRC should provide a pass/fail metric and also a way of providing
formatted feedback.

Currently there are minimal DRC checks so even if more are implemented in
C++ I see no reason why such a framework could not be implemented
concurrently anyway.

Thoughts?

Oliver

On 23 Aug 2017 10:02, "Andrey Kuznetsov" <kandrey89@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> If you're looking for good DFM manuals, check out protoexpress, otherwise
> known as Sierra Circuits.
> They're a professional board house in the USA with simple to complex board
> design support including high speed interfaces, uvias, etc.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Thomas Langås <thomas.langaas@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> > I'm not opposed to this change.  However, there are two schools of
>> > thought when it comes to board layout: strict layout constraints and no
>> > layout constraints.  I tend to lean towards the latter but I've been
>> > doing this for 30 years so I am painfully aware of the pitfalls of no
>> > layout constraints and have a pretty good idea of what not to do.
>> > Should we choose to loosen the layout constraints for blind/buried vias,
>> > then we should be prepared for a serious tongue lashing the first time
>> > someone violates their board vendor's manufacturing limitations and ends
>> > up with a bunch of useless and likely expensive boards.  Maybe at some
>> > point in the future we will have a complete constraint system that can
>> > cover all possibilities but until then we have to walk that fine line
>> > between power users and beginners.
>>
>>
>> Is there a good reason why not to build this by rulesets, and allow
>> people to define
>> their own rulesets within KiCAD.  You can have a sensible default rule
>> that covers
>> the 80-90%, and allow the people who know more about this and what they
>> need
>> just remove the default rule and add their own advanced rules?
>>
>> Of course, this would imply that without any rules at all, it's just
>> willy nilly and
>> everything allowed.  But isn't that the way design rules should be?  If
>> you want
>> to try ice skating down a mountain, it might not be smart, but it's your
>> own
>> choice  ;-)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Remember The Past, Live The Present, Change The Future
> Those who look only to the past or the present are certain to miss the
> future [JFK]
>
> kandrey89@xxxxxxxxx
> Live Long and Prosper,
> Andrey
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>