Fixed that issue, and pushed to master. Thanks for testing, Andrzej! On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Andrzej Wolski <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Jon, > > another small issue: if only enabled layer is In1.Cu, THT pads are > visible, but footprint cannot be selected. > I think that breaks your visible=selectable rule. > > Fragment of code from D_PAD::ViewGetLOD that may help here: > > if( ( GetAttribute() == PAD_ATTRIB_STANDARD || GetAttribute() == > PAD_ATTRIB_HOLE_NOT_PLATED ) > && !aView->IsLayerVisible( LAYER_PADS_TH ) ) > return HIDE; > > Cheers, > Andrzej > > W dniu 2018-03-03 o 23:39, Jon Evans pisze: > > Hey Andy, Andrzej, > > Updated patch attached, let me know if this behavior makes more sense > > Best, > Jon > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Andy Peters <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Andrzej Wolski <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Jon, >> >> I probably didn't express myself clearly. What I mean is a situation when >> *only* enabled layer if F.Paste and then you disable "Pads Front". Now >> nothing is visible on the board, but footprints are still selectable. >> >> In other words, when no single item belonging to footprint is visible, >> footprints should not be selectable. >> >> Do you still disagree with me? >> >> >> I agree with Andrzej. This is the crux of my bug report. >> >> But I understand what Jon is saying, and it doesn’t contradict. If the >> _pads_ (for example) are invisible, but say the silkscreen is visible, then >> the footprint _should_ be selectable. >> >> That, I think, is the difference between layer visibility and item >> visibility. All of the layers could be visible, but if I disable Footprints >> Front, then everything associated with all top-layer footprints vanishes >> and none of the footprints can be selected. That’s the proper operation. >> >> The converse of that is if I leave Footprints Front visibility enabled, >> and then I go and disable all of the layers associated with front >> footprints, like I did in my bug report case (disable all layers except >> Cmts.User), I am still able to select all of the invisible footprints. >> That’s not correct (IMHO). >> >> -a >> >> >> >> Andrzej >> >> W dniu 2018-03-02 o 15:42, Jon Evans pisze: >> >> Hi Andrzej, >> >> This was my intention, which is why I said I was prepared for other >> people to have other opinions :-) >> >> I think that you should still be able to select footprints even if the >> "front pads" is hidden from layers like the paste layer, *unless* you are >> in high contrast mode. >> >> -Jon >> >> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:53 AM, Andrzej Wolski <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I've tried this patch, and there is a small issue: if you have only eg >>> front paste layer enabled and front pads are hidden, footprint is still >>> selectable. >>> >>> Andrzej >>> >>> >>> W dniu 2018-02-27 o 04:11, Jon Evans pisze: >>> >>> This patch changes the selection logic for footprints to fix a reported >>> issue[1] and to make the behavior more logical to me. >>> >>> I know that correct selection behavior is something of a personal >>> preference, so I'm ready to be flamed :-) >>> >>> The new behavior: >>> >>> A footprint may be selected if: >>> 1) The corresponding "Footprints" switch is on in the Items tab, AND >>> 2) One or more of the layers that the footprint draws on is visible >>> >>> This means that if all of the layers are turned off, footprints are not >>> selectable (fixes the bug), but it also means that now footprints can be >>> selected if any draw layers are visible (for example, if you have only >>> F.Mask enabled, you can select a footprint that has solder mask and is on >>> the front layer). >>> >>> Before anyone complains, this is only if high-contrast mode is turned >>> OFF. When it is on, you can still only select items that *only* exist on >>> that layer (to make moving silkscreen around easier, for example) >>> >>> Even though this adds some more for-loops to selection filtering, I have >>> not noticed any performance hits on some selection of large boards that I >>> tested. More testing is welcome. >>> >>> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/1751960 >>> >>> -Jon >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
