kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Brian Piccioni <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jp

Actually, that is the bug: every time I hit F8 one or more of RN3, RN4, 
RN5, and RN6 are shown as new components on the PCB. It deletes the old 
RNs and put new ones with the same name.

I got RN3, RN4 then RN3, RN4,  RN5 and RN6, then RN3, etc.

Every time I hit F8 the thing rips up those RNs.

This schematic has only had one sheet ever.

I shall recompile the master branch and try and boil down the schematic 
to something simple to test.

Brian



On 2020-01-28 3:36 a.m., jp charras wrote:
> Le 28/01/2020 à 01:10, Brian Piccioni a écrit :
> > Hello
> >
> > I have been using Kicad while working on re-annotation (hopefully
> > Alexander's merge request will soon be accepted and I can dust off mine).
> >
> > I have been using branches of the current master. I have noticed a few
> > issues which I think are significant and not related to Alexander's work
> > (or mine).
> >
> > For example, when I hit F8 in eeSchema to update my PCB it resolutely
> > demands to update some of my resistor network symbols unless I select
> > "Update footprint associations by existing references". This seems to
> > happen no matter how many time I let it update those RNs.
> >
> > Should I used the standard bug reporting system or is there a special
> > way to deal with these?
> >
> > Brian
> Components with multi units have one sheet path (unique ID) by unit.
> But a footprint has only one sheet path.
> So only one sheet path must be picked among candidates.
>
> Looks to me the way the sheet path is chosen has changed between stable
> and master version.
>
> This is an annoying change, but not an actual "bug".
> However fixing it is a good idea.
>
> My personal opinion is the:
> "Update footprint associations by existing references"
> should be the default.
> and the other option only used after re-annotation (the unique id is not
> an obvious parameter for users, because it is a "shadowed" parameter).
>
> Once the board is updated, you should not see this issue (of course
> using the same eeschema version).