kicad-developers team mailing list archive

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

Hi Oliver,
>
>
> I think we need to fit this in with the existing PCBNew Attributes stuff
> (“attr” in the file format).  We currently have through-hole, SMD and
> virtual (the later being similar to DNF/DNP), but a lot of folks have found
> that too limiting for various reasons.  I suspect this means we need
> user-defined attributes, but I’m not sure how many “system-defined” ones
> we’d also want to support.
>

I did consider this, but I don't think that we can overload the SMD / THT /
virtual attribute with a DNP attribute. Setting a component as DNP doesn't
mean that (for e.g.) it is *not* a SMD component. It just means that it
should not be loaded. DNP is an *extra* attribute it does not replace the
loading type of the component.

Perhaps something like "(attr smd dnp)" could work?

Allowing advance specification of the attributes in Eeschema would be a
> nice enhancement.  But due to file format changes (on at least the PCBNew
> side) it would have to wait for 6.0.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff.
>
>
> On 25 Nov 2018, at 04:38, Oliver Walters <oliver.henry.walters@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> A feature I feel has been missing from KiCad is the ability to mark parts
> as "DNF" (Do Not Fit) so they are excluded from assembly files (BoM / PnP /
> etc).
>
> Many of the existing BoM tools (including mine) offer "hacks" to get
> around this shortfall by having a special field assigned to each component,
> for example.
>
> I have a branch working towards such functionality and am looking for some
> feedback.
>
> I consider this preliminary work towards full support of assembly
> variants. However this will need to wait until the new file format to be
> properly implemented. So for now, only DNF status is presented.
>
> Here are the features I have implemented so far:
>
> *A. Schematic components can be marked as "DNF" *
>
> A new checkbox in the component editor allows part fit to be deselected.
> By default all components are selected. (UI placement not final, just for
> demonstration).
>
> <image.png>
>
> Note that when rendered in the schematic, DNF parts are denoted by
> appended text after the RefDes field.
>
> Altium denotes DNF parts with a large red cross - I think that greying out
> DNF parts would look quite nice.
>
> *B. DNF part status is saved in the .sch schematic file*
>
> If a part is DNF , then the component line in the .sch file is appended:
>
> <image.png>
>
> Parts which *are* fitted do not get updated - to reduce file changes.
>
> As far as I can tell, this file change is fully backwards and forwards
> compatible. Old versions can open the file and simply ignore the DNF
> parameter. So perhaps this can be pushed into production before 6.x branch
> as it won't break any schematics.
>
> *C. Fitment status saved in exported netlist file*
>
> The fitment status of each component is saved to the exported netlist file.
>
> <image.png>
>
> So all this at least allows fit / DNF status to appear to the BOM tools.
>
> What's left?
>
> *1. PCBNEW*
>
> DNF status should be pushed to PCBEW, because:
>
>
>    - Don't show 3D models for parts which are marked as DNF
>    - Don't export DNF parts to the PnP files
>    - (Eventually) ability to switch between assembly variants in PCBNEW
>
> However, this would require a file format change to the .kicad_pcb file,
> and this does not have the same opportunity for version compatibility that
> the simpler .sch files do.
>
> I can make this happen, but I'm guessing it has to wait for the 6.x branch.
>
> A simple example of how this could be included in the file:
>
> <image.png>
>
> *2. Multi-Unit Parts*
>
> If you mark one unit of a multi-unit part as DNF then *all* other units
> should be marked as DNF too.
>
> Question: How (from SCH_EDIT_FRAME context) do I find all the components
> that are the same master component as a given sub-part?
>
> *3. Better Display of DNF parts*
>
> I'd like to add a "greyed out" display for DNF parts in the schematic
> viewer.
>
> *4. Nomenclature*
>
> In the files I have used "DNF" or "fitted" - what should the accepted
> nomenclature be here? I've seen DNF / DNP / NC and other examples used. I'd
> like to get some clarity on what I should use going forward.
>
> As I said above, I'd like to move this on to support a full assembly
> variant management system but I feel it's best to wait until new file
> formats. Until then, some feedback on the items above would be great.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Oliver
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>