You do realize that symbols are made and used by different people, right? The person placing a symbol in the schematic DOESN'T KNOW that the dumbass library designer put a hidden pin in it. They just wonder why ERC is complaining about a connection somewhere where there is no pin (that they can see).
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 01:46:17PM +0100, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote: > I think having a pins function changing depending on its relative position > to other pins is more confusing, especially if it is toggled by a checkbox > saying "visible". > > In that case a some kind of indication is better. Not changing the > connectivity of the pin by hardcoded logic. > > It seems to me this is still an issue that can be fixed by the ERC or > checking manually. Not using the ERC is also bad practice, and reworking > this way is just enforcing two bad behaviours. > > To me every no-connect pin should not be able to be connected. Not depending > on its visibility. > > - Kristoffer > > On 2017-02-07 13:22, Chris Pavlina wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 01:15:43PM +0100, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote: > >>I think the aim then should be to inform about this. I see the "invisible" > >>checkbox as being just that, it makes the pins invisible, but still > >>connected. > >> > >>Shouldnt this be a warning issue for the ERC, connecting to an invisible pin > >>that is not stacked? > >> > >>And as you said, you had to clean out parts that had invisible pins that > >>that was supposed not to be connected. Fault of creating the symbol, I think > >>the symbol should be reworked instead of hardcoding around faulty symbols. > >> > >>There are many silly ways of using stuff, I dont agree that having a > >>visibility checkbox determining if it is connectable is the right way, > >>rather have a pop-up warning that says that you have connected to an > >>invisible pin. > > > >...you don't think kicad has enough popup warnings /yet/?! Are you > >kidding? > > > >The feature is confusing, it should be reworked to be less confusing. > >Not leave it confusing and yell at the user when he gets confused. > > > >> > >>- Kristoffer > >> > >>On 2017-02-07 12:50, Chris Pavlina wrote: > >>>On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:44:45PM +0100, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote: > >>>>I wasnt saying its a good idea, but having invisible pins indicates that > >>>>you > >>>>want to connect to something that is not visible, its literaly there in > >>>>the > >>>>name. An invisible pin. > >>> > >>>I have seen numerous parts made by people who clearly don't get that, as > >>>they think invisible pins are a nice way to represent no-connect pins > >>>visibly in libedit that don't show up in and clutter the schematic. Just > >>>had to clean a bunch of those out of my own library that someone > >>>submitted, and someone else said the official KiCad libs have a bunch > >>>too. Not sure why you think it's so obvious when actual usage shows it's > >>>not. > >>> > >>>> > >>>>I mean, otherwise there could be a stacked pin instead. Im not saying that > >>>>invisible pins are good practise, but thats not really for me to say. > >>>> > >>>>What is silly is having invisible pins working as no-pins except if they > >>>>are > >>>>a stacked pin, well that doesnt sound clear to me. > >>> > >>>What's silly is using them that way when you could just hide the pin > >>>text. It's only the text that collides and makes them look bad. > >>> > >>>Compromise: don't connect invisible pins of type "no connect". Remove > >>>the stupidity in the design without screwing the people who depended on > >>>it. > >>> > >>>> > >>>>-Kristoffer > >>>> > >>>>On 2017-02-07 12:33, Chris Pavlina wrote: > >>>>>Honestly I think that's one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Pins > >>>>>that you can't see should make connections that you can't see to wires > >>>>>that you can? The ONLY imaginable use case for this is stacks of pins. > >>>>>Every other possible case is a mistake. > >>>>> > >>>>>On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 11:09:44AM +0100, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote: > >>>>>>Honestly I think the invisible pins are supposed to work exactly as they > >>>>>>are, that they should be able to connect, otherwise there are the "no > >>>>>>connect" - pin type or the option of just removing the pin from the > >>>>>>symbol > >>>>>>altogether. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>- Kristoffer > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>On 02/07/2017 10:02 AM, Oliver Walters wrote: > >>>>>>>Kristoffer this is good feedback. I did not expect this to get pushed > >>>>>>>straight away, and perhaps there is a way forward that won't break > >>>>>>>schematics. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Relying on implicit connected that is *not* displayed on the schematic > >>>>>>>seems like a very bad idea to me. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I appreciate your use case (I currently have a few symbols that do that > >>>>>>>too). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Kristoffer Ödmark > >>>>>>><[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >>>>>>>wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This seems dangerous, I have seen a few design where there are 5-10 > >>>>>>> pins hidden under the same pin, excpecting them to be connected. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would rather this hidden connections were indicated in some way, > >>>>>>> this change disconnects lines and might break some users > >>>>>>> footprints-symbols connection. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - Kristoffer > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 02/07/2017 09:47 AM, Oliver Walters wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The attached patch prevents invisible pins from being connected > >>>>>>> using > >>>>>>> the wire tool in eeschema. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> a) If you connect a wire endpoint to the same position as a pin > >>>>>>> endpoint, they are NOT connected visually > >>>>>>> b) Wires and insivible pins are also ignored during netlist > >>>>>>> creation > >>>>>>> c) This does not affect the ability of invisible power-pins to > >>>>>>> automatically connect to global power labels > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Is the current behavior of connecting invisible pins to wire > >>>>>>> endpoints > >>>>>>> desired? Or is it just an aberration? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If there is a very good reason that pins not visible in the > >>>>>>> schematic > >>>>>>> are able to be connected silently? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> before: http://i.imgur.com/3gModvW.png > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> after: http://i.imgur.com/r8O7c3Y.png > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> (Note the 'dangling' wire-end indication) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>> Oliver > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > >>>>>>> <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers> > >>>>>>> Post to : [email protected] > >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >>>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > >>>>>>> <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers> > >>>>>>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >>>>>>> <https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> -Kristoffer > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > >>>>>>> <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers> > >>>>>>> Post to : [email protected] > >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> > >>>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > >>>>>>> <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers> > >>>>>>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >>>>>>> <https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>-- > >>>>>>-Kristoffer > >>>>>> > >>>>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>>>>Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > >>>>>>Post to : [email protected] > >>>>>>Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > >>>>>>More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
