kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/7/2018 9:34 AM, jp charras wrote:
> Le 07/02/2018 à 15:25, Jon Evans a écrit :
>> Yes, we can only throw an error if a wire connects to only invisible pins at a given location.
> 
> Wires connected to only invisible pins is not necessary a error:
> It happens for most of power symbols.

This is true but you typically don't connect a wire to only an invisible
pin.  This would look a bit odd in a schematic.  A warning probably
makes more sense than an error in this case.

> 
>> I will add this to my queue since I am already planning on some reworks to ERC code after the 5.0
>> release.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jon
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Maciej Sumiński <maciej.suminski@xxxxxxx
>> <mailto:maciej.suminski@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>>     The ERC check sounds sensible. I know that invisible pins are also used
>>     to place many pins in a single spot, so you can connect multiple pins
>>     with just one wire (think of e.g. ground connections). We may need to
>>     take this case into account.
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>     Orson
>>
>>
>>     On 02/07/2018 02:32 PM, Jon Evans wrote:
>>     > We could hold this until after 5.0 and either add an ERC check,  or better
>>     > yet make it so that you can't actually make connections to invisible pins?
>>     >
>>     > -Jon
>>     >
>>     > On Feb 7, 2018 08:29, "Maciej Sumiński" <maciej.suminski@xxxxxxx
>>     <mailto:maciej.suminski@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>     >
>>     >> Hi Wayne,
>>     >>
>>     >> No, I have not reviewed the patch. I had some doubts about potential
>>     >> problems caused by invisible pins creating hidden connections. If user
>>     >> is neither aware of their presence when selecting a symbol, nor will
>>     >> notice them after they are placed on a schematic sheet then he may end
>>     >> up accidentally connecting them to some wires. IIRC we do not have an
>>     >> ERC test to check against such case, so I was not sure if it is a safe
>>     >> change.
>>     >>
>>     >> Cheers,
>>     >> Orson
>>     >>
>>     >> On 02/07/2018 02:21 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>     >>> Orson,
>>     >>>
>>     >>> Did you ever respond to Jon about this?  I guess the question is whether
>>     >>> or not to show invisible pins in the component chooser.
>>     >>>
>>     >>> Cheers,
>>     >>>
>>     >>> Wayne
>>     >>>
>>     >>> On 1/15/2018 9:31 PM, Jon Evans wrote:
>>     >>>> Hi Orson, patch is attached again, hopefully it goes through this time.
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>> Thanks,
>>     >>>> Jon
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 4:24 AM, Rene Pöschl <poeschlr@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:poeschlr@xxxxxxxxx>
>>     >>>> <mailto:poeschlr@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:poeschlr@xxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>>     On 15/01/18 10:00, Maciej Sumiński wrote:
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>>         Perhaps we should have an ERC rule
>>     >>>>         that warns about invisible pins being connected to a wire, any
>>     >>>>         thoughts?
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>>     Invisible pins are used for three distinct applications.
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>>     The first one is to remove clutter by hiding pins that should not be
>>     >>>>     connected. ERC will complain if you connect such pins if they have
>>     >> the
>>     >>>>     electrical type "Not connected".
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>>     The second application is to create "power labels". A invisible
>>     >> power
>>     >>>>     input pin is handled as a global label. These pins are meant to be
>>     >>>>     connected.
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>>     The third application is again to remove clutter by stacking pins.
>>     >> Here
>>     >>>>     you have one visible pin and several other invisible pins at the
>>     >> same
>>     >>>>     location. (Normally all these pins have the same name and electrical
>>     >>>>     type. With the exception of power input pins, power output pins and
>>     >>>>     output pins.)
>>     >>>>     Such pins are again meant to be connected.
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>>     This means a ERC rule that complains about connecting hidden pins
>>     >> will
>>     >>>>     create too many false positives. Having a lot of false positives
>>     >> means
>>     >>>>     users will start to ignore ERC output.
>>     >>>>
>>     >>>>     It might be a good idea to have a symbol checker that complains if
>>     >>>>     invisible pins are used differently than i described above.
>>     >>>>     In other words: complain for invisible pins if they are not part of
>>     >> a
>>     >>>>     stack or of types NC or power input.
> 
>