Hi Jeff- Can we split this patch? I think the addition of strict checking for the pads should be in 5.
-S 2018-03-27 10:34 GMT-07:00 Jeff Young <[email protected]>: > 5.0, 6.0 or abandon? > > > On 20 Mar 2018, at 16:47, Jeff Young <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Wayne, > > This solution *is* pretty much “property” tokens except that: > > 1) it’s more flexible (properties can be arbitrary s-expressions) > 2) it handles 3rd-party-needs and our own with a single infrastructure > > I was going to add (3) it requires name-spacing, but “property” tokens > will require name spacing anyway (to keep 2 different 3rd parties from > colliding). The only difference is that we get the default name-space to > ourselves. > > In fact, I think the “property” angle is a much better angle to look at it > from. Rather than think of it as a file-format issue, think of it as > s-expression meta-data for BOARD_ITEMS. If we later decide that > "(hole-to-hole-clearance 0.25)" should define a distance used by DRC, then > great. Until then, it’s just an opaque s-expression. > > I also think it demonstrates that the risk of wiping out stuff editing a > future board with an older version isn’t really there. Just like > “properties”, we’ll round-trip whatever meta-data was in the board. Sure, > new BOARD_ITEMS that you add won’t have the future data, but why would > they? > > (And if we remain concerned José’s force-save-as solution is an excellent > idea.) > > The code complexity it adds to the parser is tiny. It turned out to be > far easier to implement than anticipated. > > Cheers, > Jeff. > > > On 20 Mar 2018, at 14:48, Wayne Stambaugh <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jeff, > > I wanted some time to think about this. It has been discussed before. > While I'm not completely opposed to it, I still haven't found a more > compelling argument to convince me that it is a better idea than using > strict parsing. As a user, it does have a certain appeal. As a > developer, it opens a Pandora's box of issues that once they are in > play, could be extremely difficult to reverse. Please see my responses > below. > > On 3/20/2018 9:40 AM, Jeff Young wrote: > > @Wayne, did you have any thoughts on this iteration? > > On 20 Mar 2018, at 10:22, Jeff Young <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>> wrote: > > Oh, and I don’t think this materially alters the support equation: we > already have to deal with hand-edited boards, so what’s in the file is > never guaranteed to be something Kicad put there. > > > True, but this is one of the reasons that the board parser is strict. > It is immediately obvious what doesn't belong in the file. Also, in the > past users have tricked eeschema and pcbnew into a feature that didn't > technically exist by taking advantage of the loose file parsing. Then > when something changed internally and their clever hacks were broken, we > ended up with bug reports. I do not want to repeat this again. > > > On 20 Mar 2018, at 10:19, Jeff Young <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>> wrote: > > Hi Seth, > > The original version spit out log entries for skipped elements. This > version follows the XML/browser convention of silently ignoring. > Even though this isn’t an XML format, I think we need to recognise > that we live in an XML world and XML processing conventions set > expectations. > > > After reading this, I am even more thankful that we didn't choose XML > for our file format. Gleefully ignoring file syntax that the parser > doesn't understand IMO is a bad idea. This flies in the face of the > basic premise that we control the format of our files not someone else. > As soon as you allow others to dictate your file format, you are in > trouble. > > > The patch strictly checks everything for round-tripping so that there > is no data loss. The pad stuff is really a separate issue: it was > meant to be loose only during development and then tightened up, but > the tightening step was forgotten. Since we don’t store pad stuff we > don’t understand, it has to be tightened. In short: if you can round > trip stuff you don’t understand then do so; otherwise throw. > > > The round tripping is fine and makes sense but it also adds to the code > complexity of the parser. The pad issue is different. I don't know > when that was slipped into the parser but it should not be there. If > there is an unexpected token, that should flag a file load error. > > > Certainly one use case is opening boards from future versions. If > you edit them, then you’re at your own peril. This behaviour is > common enough that I believe it is well understood (although we > should obviously mention it in a version-check dialog). > > > Perhaps, but I just see this ending badly. Maybe I'm being paranoid > here but it's so easy to imagine a scenario where someone did a lot of > editing in a newer version of kicad then makes the fatal mistake of > opening the board in an older version of kicad and wipes out a lot of > work. Technically not kicad's fault but I'm not so sure the user will > see it that way. > > > Another use case is 3rd-party tools (which might even be written as > Python plugins) that want to carry their own stuff around in the > board. These might even be processing/manufacturing instructions > that don’t have any visual expression in Kicad anyway. > > > This is one of the primary reasons that I do not like ignoring unknown > file formatting. It creates the potential for name space pollution that > could cause issues down the road. The eventual goal is to implement the > "property" token to define key/value pairs for third party applications > to add user specific information to any board object without polluting > the controlled part of the file format. The beauty of this is that we > do not have to coordinate with 3rd party developers to ensure we are not > clashing with anything the are working on. They are free to add > whatever properties they would like while we still maintain strict file > parsing. This was always part of the grand plan for the board file > format that kind of got lost in the noise and me becoming project leader. > > Cheers, > > Wayne > > > Cheers, > Jeff. > > > On 19 Mar 2018, at 22:51, Seth Hillbrand <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>> wrote: > > Hi Jeff- > > A few questions on how you are implementing this: > > 1) How does the user know what was skipped? I can imagine team > members with different versions getting into difficulty, especially > if the features being skipped change the board layout. > > 2) You are removing strict checking for most of the board but you > are adding strict checking for pad options. What's the difference? > > 3) If we keep these options around but don't allow editing/removing, > don't we run into a risk of generating a really wonk-y board that > only looks wonky in a newer version of KiCad but looks fine in an > older version? For example, imagine we implement rounded corners as > a parameter and then a user with an older version of KiCad edits and > saves the board. The rounded corner is only visible in KiCad 6 but > the user in KiCad 5 can edit the board to look right to her only to > have her colleague use KiCad 6 and see the track violating DRC. I > think that might be counter-intuitive for users but maybe there's a > way around it. > > In general, if I understand the use-case, this is to allow users to > open newer boards in older KiCad versions? Is there another use case? > > I think I can see clear to this for options like the 3d-model offset > where it could be either inches or mm but there isn't a difference > in the actual layout. Allowing general unrecognized options would > seem to open up a worm can in terms of support as in "Please post > the KiCad version and the file version in order to figure out the > problem." > > -S > > > > 2018-03-18 9:46 GMT-07:00 Jeff Young <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>>: > > OK, for your guys’ (re)viewing pleasure, a patch which > losslessly round-trips stuff it doesn’t understand. > > > > > On 16 Mar 2018, at 19:15, hauptmech <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>> wrote: > > While i would still like to see this (my) shim go in, I agree > with wayne. Until/unless a less brittle approach is used for > the parser, it's better to signal a problem painfully and > maintain the integrity of the file. > > I have to admit that when i first heard the s-expressions idea > I assumed that the intention was to use a lisp like virtual > machine for loading and maintaining design data. I've used vm's > for data storage before (lua and python), and it's great. > Parsing is free and you can jam in functions and other data > when needed. > > > > On 17 Mar 2018 07:17, "Jeff Young" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>> wrote: > > Hi Wayne, > > Patch reverted. > > However, I think your concern is misplaced. If we want to > prevent dataloss (ie: from reading a 6.0 file into 5.0), > then we should warn the user based on the version string > (and give them a chance to say “I still want to open”). > > But either way, actually failing to read the file leaves > the user in a pickle (especially when it’s easy enough for > them to try out a nightly that may very well be ahead of > their stable). > > (And for that reason I think it’s important to put it into > 5.0, as otherwise it won’t help until we start making 7.0 > file format changes.) > > Cheers, > Jeff. > > On 16 Mar 2018, at 18:00, Wayne Stambaugh > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > Jeff, > > Please revert this patch. Any changes to the board file > > parser and/or > > formatter need to be discussed before the changes are > > committed. It has > > been the intention that the board parser be pendantic by > > design to > > prevent data loss by ignoring unknown formatting. > > Allowing anything > > outside of the expected formatting in the board file is > > not something > > that I want to introduce without some discussion. Even > > should we decide > > to accept this patch, I would prefer we put it off until v6. > > That being said, the patch fails to build on windows with > > following error: > > > > C:/msys64/home/wstambaugh/src/kicad-trunk/pcbnew/pcb_parser.cpp: > In > > member function 'void PCB_PARSER::parseUnknown()': > > C:/msys64/home/wstambaugh/src/kicad-trunk/ > pcbnew/pcb_parser.cpp:1269:12: > > error: request for member 'LogText' in > > '__acrt_iob_func(2)', which is of > > pointer type FILE* {aka _iobuf*}' (maybe you meant to > > use '->' ?) > > stderr.LogText( msg ); > ^~~~~~~ > > Cheers, > > Wayne > > On 3/16/2018 1:08 PM, Jeff Young wrote: > > Perhaps somewhat germane to this discussion I have > > removed the strict-format nags from the PCB parser. It now > logs warnings to stderr but otherwise ignores structures it > doesn’t understand. > > > I’m not sure that helps hauptmech much as if the file is > > subsequently written the unknown markup will be lost, but I > thought I’d mention it. > > > Cheers, > Jeff. > > On 7 Mar 2018, at 20:12, hauptmech <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > Hi Thomasz, > > I hope I'm able to address you concerns. I'm stuck > > using kicad stable in many situations. I brought clearances > up for discussion last July but no one moved on it, nor are > they required to. Clearance management is a major pain > point for me so I wrote a fix. This patch will let us (me > and the people I collaborate with) work using version 5, > but open and close files written with a version patched > with clearance handling code. > > > I believe that code exactly like this will go into > > version 6. Getting it in earlier makes a huge difference to > me, so I'm submitting it. > > > On 07/03/18 23:30, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote: > > Hi hauptmech, > > I'm sorry but IMHO we can't accept your patch: > - it changes the file format while we are already in > > feature freeze. > > This is a way too big change to accept for the V5. > > > This patch simply adds tokens to the file format. No > > clearance data is saved for files that use the netclass > only. Files without clearance tokens continue to remain > without them. > > > Yes it is a backward compatible file format change, but > > it does no harm to V5 files already in the wild. > > > - we are planning to overhaul the clearance/design > > rules system in V6. > > Storing the clearance *DIRECTLY* for each track > > segment/via will > > conflict with any more sophisticated design rule > > management system. > > > I'm glad you are planning this. I am sure that > > regardless of the sophistication of the rule system, you > will store clearance directly for exactly the same reason > that track width is stored directly now. There are always > exceptions to the rules. > > > If kicad choose a direction that does not store > > clearances per item, then it is easy to rip these few lines > back out. > > > Did this answer your existing concerns about this > > patch? Are there any other concerns you have about this patch? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > > <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers> > > Post to : [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected] > <[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> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > > <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers> > > Post to : [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected] > <[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> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > > <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers> > > Post to : [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected] > <[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> > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers> > Post to : [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected] > <[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> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers> > Post to : [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected] > <[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> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected] > <[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] > <mailto:[email protected] > <[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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
