kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Greg Smith <ecomputerd@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think more grouping in general categories is good. I also think that it would be nice to exclude *specific* DRCs that once a designer checks the error, they can flag it to ignore in the future. The specific check could be identified by a unique id: a hash of specific information, like unique error and objects involved (identified by geometries and properties involved). If anything changes, then the rule violation reappears under a different unique id. I think this would help greatly on near-tapeout activities where sifting over the same DRC errors becomes tedious and prone to missing valid DRC violations in the midst of “designer checked and allowed” ones.

Greg S.

> On Jun 10, 2020, at 7:59 PM, Jon Evans <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> A DRC error code is something like "Via inside keepout area", or in
> the code, DRCE_VIA_INSIDE_KEEPOUT.  It describes a "type" of DRC
> error.  This type is used for organizing the errors in the DRC report,
> and more recently, for letting you set a severity
> (error/warning/ignore) for each code.
> 
> Currently we have a lot of DRC violation types, probably because the
> violation types match up to the underlying code that is doing the
> checking.  So, we also have a DRCE_MICROVIA_INSIDE_KEEPOUT and
> DRCE_BBVIA_INSIDE_KEEPOUT, because a lot of KiCad code has separate
> paths for those three types of vias.
> 
> Do people find this useful?  I think it is too specific: I would
> rather see a single code DRCE_VIA_INSIDE_KEEPOUT to include all types
> of vias.  I could even see having a single code for any object inside
> a keepout that isn't supposed to be there.  I can't imagine a
> situation where I would want to have a via inside a keepout be an
> error, but a microvia inside a keepout be a warning or an ignore
> (having the separate error codes means you can have seperate severity
> settings).  If I wanted to know if a particular DRC error referred to
> a via or a microvia, I can do that from the linked item information --
> I don't need a category to tell me that.
> 
> What do you think?  Does having a lot of very specific error codes
> help your workflow?  Would you miss these categories if some of them
> got consolidated like the example I gave?  If so, are there other
> changes we could make (or features we could add) that would make it
> easier to deal with having less specific error codes?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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