kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Seth Hillbrand <seth.hillbrand@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Eeli-

My comment above was to note that previously, we could get into a state
where you needed to delete the module to get back to a valid board.  With
the patch, the state became that you had a valid board but could no longer
delete or edit the module.  This is what I meant by solving one problem and
creating another.

It is not a question of whether we fix this bug.  It is only how we fix
it.  I have a preference for keeping the modules unchanged by the layer
setup.  This minimizes the number of nag screens and prevents data loss.
This is the direction I'm working at the moment.

Best-
Seth

2018-03-21 15:08 GMT-07:00 Eeli Kaikkonen <eeli.kaikkonen@xxxxxxxxx>:

>
>
> 2018-03-21 20:16 GMT+02:00 Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> Sounds reasonable.  If I'm reading the comments correctly, I don't like
>> the idea that the current proposed patch leaves footprints in a state
>> where they cannot be selected and edited.  I'm sure that will quickly
>> produce another but report.
>>
>>
> Now I have to say again that the fix doesn't actually cause that
> situation. It happens already. If there is a footprint with only pads with
> e.g. paste layer only and then the paste layer is removed from the board,
> the footprint can't be selected. It happens already without the patch.
> Apparently my bug report was the first one and the patch wouldn't trigger
> more problems. Of course I understand that footprints should be always
> selectable, and the fact they are not is a bug on its own.
>
> BTW, also the situation when such a footprint is added to a board which
> lacks the necessary layer should be handled. It also leads to a
> non-selectable footprint.
>
> But now, let's be realistic. What are the odds that people have footprints
> which don't have copper pads but have paste-only pads or mask-only pads and
> then they remove that layer, leaving the footprint non-selectable? After
> all, this happens *only* when a pad has only paste or mask and no copper
> *and* the footprint doesn't have any pads with other layers. I have seen
> enough to have learned to never say "why would anybody ever do that", but
> it seems very unlikely, and removing a copper layer which already has pads
> seems also very unlikely (well... it seems to be impossible to do it from
> the UI).
>
> Another thing to remember is that my original report was about having data
> lost by accident because there was no warning. If users are warned about
> consequences when they do something they do it at their own risk, right? I
> won't run into the same situation again even if the bug remains unfixed, so
> I don't have an axe to grind, but it would feel weird if it wouldn't be
> fixed now, considering that even the patch wouldn't lead to any *new*
> problems and that the original problem would have been prevented by only
> adding necessary checks to the code and a warning to the dialog.
>
> Eeli Kaikkonen
>