kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Maciej Sumiński <maciej.suminski@xxxxxxx>]

On 10/19/2017 05:20 PM, jp charras wrote:
> Le 19/10/2017 à 16:59, Maciej Sumiński a écrit :
>> On 10/19/2017 04:32 PM, jp charras wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Hi Orson,
>>>
>>> Could you have a look into this patch?
>>> It fixes the issue when a change is committed with a item belonging a footprint.
>>>
>>> But I do not have very good knowledge of COMMIT classes.
>>
>> Hi Jean-Pierre,
>>
>> Thank you for looking into the problem. In the proposed patch
>> BOARD_COMMIT will try to save the item parent even for items that do not
>> belong to modules (e.g. tracks, vias), ending up with the whole board
>> stored in the undo buffer.
> 
> In fact no: the parent is used only if it is a MODULE (due to the dynamic_cast)

You are right, I realized it a bit too late.

> However the patch can save many times the same MODULE, in
> COMMIT& BOARD_COMMIT::Stage( std::vector<EDA_ITEM*>& container, CHANGE_TYPE aChangeType )
> if the container contains many items of the same MODULE (perhaps no a major issue, but...).

It should not be a problem, there is a countermeasure for such case in
COMMIT::createModified(), which normally is invoked by COMMIT::Stage().

> The patch is not really finished, in fact.

Now I see it is quite possible the patch might be complete. The only
thing I would suggest is to change dynamic_cast to checking
EDA_ITEM::Type() return value.

>>
>> I would rather take advantage of BOARD_COMMIT::m_editModules field to
>> determine whether the commit is created by the footprint editor. Then
>> the check should be valid, but still the code needs to be tested to be
>> sure it works as expected.
>>
>> If you can wait, I can wrap up a fix by tomorrow morning.
> 
> Yes, Please do.
> 
> However, if you use BOARD_COMMIT::m_editModules, it is a bit restrictive, because it means you
> cannot edit a pad or a footprint keepout in the board editor (Legacy canvas allows a change of a pad
> in the board editor).

Good point, I retract my comment about m_editModules then.

Regards,
Orson

> I am thinking we could need this kind of edition when the copper layer ID must be taken in account,
> typically for the keepout, and perhaps later in pads.
> (this is the reason BOARD_COMMIT::m_editModules was not used)
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>>
>> Regards,
>> Orson
>>
> 
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature