kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[jp charras <jp.charras@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Le 21/03/2018 à 17:46, Wayne Stambaugh a écrit :
> JP,
> 
> Did you take a look at this patch?  I know we have talked about this in
> the past and that the fix would not be easy.  Until we can define and
> implement a complete solution, this could be a short term fix.  When you
> get a chance, please take a look at it an comment on it.
> 
> hauptmech,
> 
> I'm not sure about the idea of breaking a footprint (module) into layer
> by layer pieces to match the removed layers.  Footprints are typically
> thought of as atomic objects.  I wonder if it wouldn't be more prudent
> to remove the footprint if any of it's layers are removed from the layer
> list and warn the user that removing said layer(s) would result in
> footprints being removed.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Wayne
> 

I had a look at this patch.

I do not think removing something to footprints already on board is a good idea.

I understand other board items can or must be removed when disabling a layer, but removing something
to a footprint is breaking this footprint, that become no more reliable.

What happens if later, a disabled layer like a silkscreen is re-enabled for some reason?
Footprints carefully designed are now broken.

Like Seth, I am thinking disabling a layer (disabling is not deleting) should not modify footprints.

Currently, the Layer Setup dialog can create issues because it allows disabling layers that are now
used in DRC (edge cuts, courtyard, and margin that should be used in V6 to create obstacles).
Some other layers are mandatory to make a board: solder mask, solder paste.
These layers should be *always* enabled.

So a better fix is certainly not to delete something in footprints, but do not allow disabling these
mandatory layers, and for others layers, display a warning if a disabled layer is in use in a footprint.

For me, the major bug is in the Layer Setup dialog that allows disabling any layer.


> On 3/20/2018 4:19 AM, Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
>> 2018-03-20 0:19 GMT+02:00 Seth Hillbrand <seth.hillbrand@xxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:seth.hillbrand@xxxxxxxxx>>:
>>
>>
>>     As it is, the patch resolves an issue and creates another.
>>
>>
>> Actually Seth is wrong here. It doesn't create another problem. Namely,
>> as the code without the patch works now, it leaves the board uneditable
>> anyways, and without a warning. Just test with a footprint which has
>> nothing but ref and value and one paste-only pad. It doesn't matter
>> whether the pad is left there or removed after the layer is deleted. The
>> footprint can't be selected or edited.
>>
>> I would still go with this patch, just add a sentence to the warning if
>> pads are deleted. "Additionally this may lead to footprints which cannot
>> be edited or deleted" or something like that.

-- 
Jean-Pierre CHARRAS