Re: [Kicad-developers] [RFQ] - Do Not Fit

[Evan Shultz]

Oliver,

I have concerns about greying out the part and being able to see any change
when printed in B This may be why Altium used a big "x", and why the
tools I regularly use also allow an "x" or removing the DNI (I'm most
familiar with this acronym) part.

Another thing to consider is the ability to overload the text in the Title
Block parameters on a per-variant basis. This information will also be
variant-specific and, at least at my work, is important to capture for each
variant schematic.

As it seems you're being asked to provide a blueprint, I'd be delighted to
help if you want additional blueprint contributors. I've been through this
a couple times, including with PLM/ERP integration, so perhaps I can
provide some input that would be useful to all KiCad users. Email me if you
like.

Cheers,
Evan

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:08 AM Wayne Stambaugh 
wrote:

> Oliver,
>
> On 11/26/2018 4:03 AM, Oliver Walters wrote:
> > I'd like some direction from a project leader on how I should progress,
> > rather than wasting my efforts:
> >
> > 1. Adding "DNP" option to schematic components.
> >
> > This can be achieved now, without breaking the .sch file format. It
> > allows components to be marked as DNP in the schematic and in the
> > exported netlist and BoM files.
>
> I would prefer that we defer this to the new schematic file format as
> part of the v6 release.  No file format changes are accepted during
> stable release series including using schematic symbol fields for new
> features.  I will be submitting the schematic file format document for
> comment soon.
>
> >
> > Should I submit a patch for this part of the feature? I can submit a
> > suggestion for a fully-fledged assembly variant management system after
> > the new sch file format is written. But I think this DNP feature is
> > useful for now. I know I would use it all the time.
>
> Not until after 5.1 is released.  Once 5.1 is released, the development
> branch will be open for new features.
>
> >
> > 2. Add "DNP" option to PCB
> >
> > I think the schematic should be in charge of managing variants. The
> > logical information (supplier, resistor value, LED color) etc are
> > contained in the schematic and these values are what differ in assembly
> > variation. So the DNP status should be pushed to the PCB (so that
> > footprints can be excluded from assembly files as required).
>
> I agree with your assessment that this feature belongs in the schematic
> and not the board.  I see variants as being part of the schematic BOM
> feature.
>
> >
> > a) I do not think that marking a footprint as DNP changes the placement
> > "type" (SMT / THT / virtual) it is instead a modifier
> >
> > b) This requires a file format change. Would such a change be supported
> > in a 5.x release?
>
> The policy is no file format changes during stable release series so all
> v5 releases will have the same file format.
>
> >
> > c) How should this information be encoded in the module description in
> > the .kicad_pcb file? Use the 'properties' token? Implement a new custom
> > token?
>
> There should be a new custom token and a bump to the file revision.
> Properties are for saving information for use by third party tools and
> should not be used for internal features.
>
> >
> > Feedback appreciated. I'd like to move forward on this and am willing to
> > do the work to eventually support proper variant management. But need
> > some support from the higher-ups ;)
>
> I recommend creating either a blueprint or some type of public document
> that developers can comment on so we can define the behavior of this
> feature.  It doesn't have to be formal.  A simple bulleted list will do.
>  Once we agree on the behavior, implementing it will be less painful
> than the dealing with scope creep.
>
> I think this would be a useful feature so I would support it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 3:38 PM Oliver Walters
> > mailto:oliver.henry.walt...@gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > A feature I feel has been missing from KiCad is the ability to mark
> > parts as "DNF" (Do Not Fit) so they are excluded from assembly files
> > (BoM / PnP / etc).
> >
> > Many of the existing BoM tools (including mine) offer "hacks" to get
> > around this shortfall by having a special field assigned to each
> > component, for example.
> >
> > I have a branch working towards such functionality and am looking
> > for some feedback.
> >
> > I consider this preliminary work towards full support of assembly
> > variants. However this will need to wait until the new file format
> > to be properly implemented. So for now, only DNF status is presented.
> >
> > Here are the features I have implemented so far:
> >
> > *A. Schematic components can be marked as "DNF" *
> >
> > A new checkbox in the component editor allows part fit to be
> > deselected. By default all components are selected. (UI placement
> > not 

Re: [Kicad-developers] [RFQ] - Do Not Fit

[Wayne Stambaugh]

Oliver,

On 11/26/2018 4:03 AM, Oliver Walters wrote:
> I'd like some direction from a project leader on how I should progress,
> rather than wasting my efforts:
> 
> 1. Adding "DNP" option to schematic components.
> 
> This can be achieved now, without breaking the .sch file format. It
> allows components to be marked as DNP in the schematic and in the
> exported netlist and BoM files.

I would prefer that we defer this to the new schematic file format as
part of the v6 release.  No file format changes are accepted during
stable release series including using schematic symbol fields for new
features.  I will be submitting the schematic file format document for
comment soon.

> 
> Should I submit a patch for this part of the feature? I can submit a
> suggestion for a fully-fledged assembly variant management system after
> the new sch file format is written. But I think this DNP feature is
> useful for now. I know I would use it all the time.

Not until after 5.1 is released.  Once 5.1 is released, the development
branch will be open for new features.

> 
> 2. Add "DNP" option to PCB
> 
> I think the schematic should be in charge of managing variants. The
> logical information (supplier, resistor value, LED color) etc are
> contained in the schematic and these values are what differ in assembly
> variation. So the DNP status should be pushed to the PCB (so that
> footprints can be excluded from assembly files as required).

I agree with your assessment that this feature belongs in the schematic
and not the board.  I see variants as being part of the schematic BOM
feature.

> 
> a) I do not think that marking a footprint as DNP changes the placement
> "type" (SMT / THT / virtual) it is instead a modifier
> 
> b) This requires a file format change. Would such a change be supported
> in a 5.x release?

The policy is no file format changes during stable release series so all
v5 releases will have the same file format.

> 
> c) How should this information be encoded in the module description in
> the .kicad_pcb file? Use the 'properties' token? Implement a new custom
> token? 

There should be a new custom token and a bump to the file revision.
Properties are for saving information for use by third party tools and
should not be used for internal features.

> 
> Feedback appreciated. I'd like to move forward on this and am willing to
> do the work to eventually support proper variant management. But need
> some support from the higher-ups ;)

I recommend creating either a blueprint or some type of public document
that developers can comment on so we can define the behavior of this
feature.  It doesn't have to be formal.  A simple bulleted list will do.
 Once we agree on the behavior, implementing it will be less painful
than the dealing with scope creep.

I think this would be a useful feature so I would support it.

Cheers,

Wayne

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 3:38 PM Oliver Walters
> mailto:oliver.henry.walt...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> 
> A feature I feel has been missing from KiCad is the ability to mark
> parts as "DNF" (Do Not Fit) so they are excluded from assembly files
> (BoM / PnP / etc).
> 
> Many of the existing BoM tools (including mine) offer "hacks" to get
> around this shortfall by having a special field assigned to each
> component, for example.
> 
> I have a branch working towards such functionality and am looking
> for some feedback.
> 
> I consider this preliminary work towards full support of assembly
> variants. However this will need to wait until the new file format
> to be properly implemented. So for now, only DNF status is presented.
> 
> Here are the features I have implemented so far:
> 
> *A. Schematic components can be marked as "DNF" *
> 
> A new checkbox in the component editor allows part fit to be
> deselected. By default all components are selected. (UI placement
> not final, just for demonstration).
> 
> image.png
> 
> Note that when rendered in the schematic, DNF parts are denoted by
> appended text after the RefDes field.
> 
> Altium denotes DNF parts with a large red cross - I think that
> greying out DNF parts would look quite nice.
> 
> *B. DNF part status is saved in the .sch schematic file*
> 
> If a part is DNF , then the component line in the .sch file is appended:
> 
> image.png
> 
> Parts which *are* fitted do not get updated - to reduce file changes.
> 
> As far as I can tell, this file change is fully backwards and
> forwards compatible. Old versions can open the file and simply
> ignore the DNF parameter. So perhaps this can be pushed into
> production before 6.x branch as it won't break any schematics.
> 
> *C. Fitment status saved in exported netlist file*
> *
> *
> The fitment status of each component is saved to the exported
> netlist file.
> 
> image.png
> 
> So all this at least allows fit / DNF status 

Re: [Kicad-developers] [RFQ] - Do Not Fit

[Oliver Walters]

Hi Oliver,
>
>
> I think we need to fit this in with the existing PCBNew Attributes stuff
> (“attr” in the file format).  We currently have through-hole, SMD and
> virtual (the later being similar to DNF/DNP), but a lot of folks have found
> that too limiting for various reasons.  I suspect this means we need
> user-defined attributes, but I’m not sure how many “system-defined” ones
> we’d also want to support.
>

I did consider this, but I don't think that we can overload the SMD / THT /
virtual attribute with a DNP attribute. Setting a component as DNP doesn't
mean that (for e.g.) it is *not* a SMD component. It just means that it
should not be loaded. DNP is an *extra* attribute it does not replace the
loading type of the component.

Perhaps something like "(attr smd dnp)" could work?

Allowing advance specification of the attributes in Eeschema would be a
> nice enhancement.  But due to file format changes (on at least the PCBNew
> side) it would have to wait for 6.0.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff.
>
>
> On 25 Nov 2018, at 04:38, Oliver Walters 
> wrote:
>
> A feature I feel has been missing from KiCad is the ability to mark parts
> as "DNF" (Do Not Fit) so they are excluded from assembly files (BoM / PnP /
> etc).
>
> Many of the existing BoM tools (including mine) offer "hacks" to get
> around this shortfall by having a special field assigned to each component,
> for example.
>
> I have a branch working towards such functionality and am looking for some
> feedback.
>
> I consider this preliminary work towards full support of assembly
> variants. However this will need to wait until the new file format to be
> properly implemented. So for now, only DNF status is presented.
>
> Here are the features I have implemented so far:
>
> *A. Schematic components can be marked as "DNF" *
>
> A new checkbox in the component editor allows part fit to be deselected.
> By default all components are selected. (UI placement not final, just for
> demonstration).
>
> 
>
> Note that when rendered in the schematic, DNF parts are denoted by
> appended text after the RefDes field.
>
> Altium denotes DNF parts with a large red cross - I think that greying out
> DNF parts would look quite nice.
>
> *B. DNF part status is saved in the .sch schematic file*
>
> If a part is DNF , then the component line in the .sch file is appended:
>
> 
>
> Parts which *are* fitted do not get updated - to reduce file changes.
>
> As far as I can tell, this file change is fully backwards and forwards
> compatible. Old versions can open the file and simply ignore the DNF
> parameter. So perhaps this can be pushed into production before 6.x branch
> as it won't break any schematics.
>
> *C. Fitment status saved in exported netlist file*
>
> The fitment status of each component is saved to the exported netlist file.
>
> 
>
> So all this at least allows fit / DNF status to appear to the BOM tools.
>
> What's left?
>
> *1. PCBNEW*
>
> DNF status should be pushed to PCBEW, because:
>
>
>- Don't show 3D models for parts which are marked as DNF
>- Don't export DNF parts to the PnP files
>- (Eventually) ability to switch between assembly variants in PCBNEW
>
> However, this would require a file format change to the .kicad_pcb file,
> and this does not have the same opportunity for version compatibility that
> the simpler .sch files do.
>
> I can make this happen, but I'm guessing it has to wait for the 6.x branch.
>
> A simple example of how this could be included in the file:
>
> 
>
> *2. Multi-Unit Parts*
>
> If you mark one unit of a multi-unit part as DNF then *all* other units
> should be marked as DNF too.
>
> Question: How (from SCH_EDIT_FRAME context) do I find all the components
> that are the same master component as a given sub-part?
>
> *3. Better Display of DNF parts*
>
> I'd like to add a "greyed out" display for DNF parts in the schematic
> viewer.
>
> *4. Nomenclature*
>
> In the files I have used "DNF" or "fitted" - what should the accepted
> nomenclature be here? I've seen DNF / DNP / NC and other examples used. I'd
> like to get some clarity on what I should use going forward.
>
> As I said above, I'd like to move this on to support a full assembly
> variant management system but I feel it's best to wait until new file
> formats. Until then, some feedback on the items above would be great.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Oliver
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] [RFQ] - Do Not Fit

[Wayne Stambaugh]

Just a reminder, we already have a properties token for key/value pairs.
 Key/value pairs are provided for use by third party tools and are not
used internally.  All internal functionality must be implement as valid
file tokens.  Also keep in mind that one of the goals of kicad file
formats is to be as human readable as possible without being overly
verbose.  In this case "dnp" is not very readable.  The default
assumption should be to populate a footprint so dnp would only be used
when not populating a footprint.

Cheers,

Wayne

On 11/25/2018 11:20 AM, Jon Evans wrote:
> Along these lines, we should probably figure out what
> attributes/properties KiCad should store as rigidly-defined fields/data
> members rather than a more flexible (key/value) system. 
> 
> From what I can tell, some of the commercial EDA software I have used
> treats almost everything as an "attribute" in that everything is stored
> the same way (probably as a K-V map internally), and some things just
> can't be deleted. There are certain advantages here: you can display a
> table of all item properties and update them together. I know we have a
> properties editor already, but it would be nice if *all* properties were
> editable in a table view, not just the "user" ones. 
> 
> -Jon
> 
> 
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 08:11 Jeff Young   wrote:
> 
> Hi Oliver,
> 
> I think we need to fit this in with the existing PCBNew Attributes
> stuff (“attr” in the file format).  We currently have through-hole,
> SMD and virtual (the later being similar to DNF/DNP), but a lot of
> folks have found that too limiting for various reasons.  I suspect
> this means we need user-defined attributes, but I’m not sure how
> many “system-defined” ones we’d also want to support.
> 
> Allowing advance specification of the attributes in Eeschema would
> be a nice enhancement.  But due to file format changes (on at least
> the PCBNew side) it would have to wait for 6.0.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jeff.
> 
> 
>> On 25 Nov 2018, at 04:38, Oliver Walters
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> A feature I feel has been missing from KiCad is the ability to
>> mark parts as "DNF" (Do Not Fit) so they are excluded from
>> assembly files (BoM / PnP / etc).
>>
>> Many of the existing BoM tools (including mine) offer "hacks" to
>> get around this shortfall by having a special field assigned to
>> each component, for example.
>>
>> I have a branch working towards such functionality and am looking
>> for some feedback.
>>
>> I consider this preliminary work towards full support of assembly
>> variants. However this will need to wait until the new file format
>> to be properly implemented. So for now, only DNF status is presented.
>>
>> Here are the features I have implemented so far:
>>
>> *A. Schematic components can be marked as "DNF" *
>>
>> A new checkbox in the component editor allows part fit to be
>> deselected. By default all components are selected. (UI placement
>> not final, just for demonstration).
>>
>> 
>>
>> Note that when rendered in the schematic, DNF parts are denoted by
>> appended text after the RefDes field.
>>
>> Altium denotes DNF parts with a large red cross - I think that
>> greying out DNF parts would look quite nice.
>>
>> *B. DNF part status is saved in the .sch schematic file*
>>
>> If a part is DNF , then the component line in the .sch file is
>> appended:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Parts which *are* fitted do not get updated - to reduce file changes.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, this file change is fully backwards and
>> forwards compatible. Old versions can open the file and simply
>> ignore the DNF parameter. So perhaps this can be pushed into
>> production before 6.x branch as it won't break any schematics.
>>
>> *C. Fitment status saved in exported netlist file*
>> *
>> *
>> The fitment status of each component is saved to the exported
>> netlist file.
>>
>> 
>>
>> So all this at least allows fit / DNF status to appear to the BOM
>> tools.
>>
>> What's left?
>>
>> *1. PCBNEW*
>> *
>> *
>> DNF status should be pushed to PCBEW, because:
>>
>>   * Don't show 3D models for parts which are marked as DNF
>>   * Don't export DNF parts to the PnP files
>>   * (Eventually) ability to switch between assembly variants in PCBNEW
>>
>> However, this would require a file format change to the .kicad_pcb
>> file, and this does not have the same opportunity for version
>> compatibility that the simpler .sch files do.
>>
>> I can make this happen, but I'm guessing it has to wait for the
>> 6.x branch.
>>
>> A simple example of how this could be included in the file:
>>
>> 
>> *
>> *
>> *2. Multi-Unit Parts*
>>
>> If you mark one unit of a multi-unit part as DNF 

Re: [Kicad-developers] [RFQ] - Do Not Fit

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

su 25. marrask. 2018 klo 20.25 Jeff Young (j...@rokeby.ie) kirjoitti:

>
>
> I think we need to fit this in with the existing PCBNew Attributes stuff
> (“attr” in the file format).  We currently have through-hole, SMD and
> virtual (the later being similar to DNF/DNP)
>

I have always found "virtual" a strange word in this context. Anyways, it's
not logically same as "do not populate". Logically there are three options:
SMD, THT and No Component. The latter for footprints for which there's no
component at all, like programming pads for IC, gold fingers, castellated
edge or test point. For those footprints which have a component there would
be "do not populate" option which could remove the component from 3D view
and BOM if active.

For maximum flexibility, like in the situation which I mentioned in my
previous post, there could be "population groups" which could be
activated/deactivated. So instead of "DNP on/off" key there would be "DNP
group" key which would have the group (or by default be empty), and the
group would be switched on/off.

Eeli Kaikkonen
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] [RFQ] - Do Not Fit

[Jon Evans]

Along these lines, we should probably figure out what attributes/properties
KiCad should store as rigidly-defined fields/data members rather than a
more flexible (key/value) system.

>From what I can tell, some of the commercial EDA software I have used
treats almost everything as an "attribute" in that everything is stored the
same way (probably as a K-V map internally), and some things just can't be
deleted. There are certain advantages here: you can display a table of all
item properties and update them together. I know we have a properties
editor already, but it would be nice if *all* properties were editable in a
table view, not just the "user" ones.

-Jon


On Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 08:11 Jeff Young  Hi Oliver,
>
> I think we need to fit this in with the existing PCBNew Attributes stuff
> (“attr” in the file format).  We currently have through-hole, SMD and
> virtual (the later being similar to DNF/DNP), but a lot of folks have found
> that too limiting for various reasons.  I suspect this means we need
> user-defined attributes, but I’m not sure how many “system-defined” ones
> we’d also want to support.
>
> Allowing advance specification of the attributes in Eeschema would be a
> nice enhancement.  But due to file format changes (on at least the PCBNew
> side) it would have to wait for 6.0.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff.
>
>
> On 25 Nov 2018, at 04:38, Oliver Walters 
> wrote:
>
> A feature I feel has been missing from KiCad is the ability to mark parts
> as "DNF" (Do Not Fit) so they are excluded from assembly files (BoM / PnP /
> etc).
>
> Many of the existing BoM tools (including mine) offer "hacks" to get
> around this shortfall by having a special field assigned to each component,
> for example.
>
> I have a branch working towards such functionality and am looking for some
> feedback.
>
> I consider this preliminary work towards full support of assembly
> variants. However this will need to wait until the new file format to be
> properly implemented. So for now, only DNF status is presented.
>
> Here are the features I have implemented so far:
>
> *A. Schematic components can be marked as "DNF" *
>
> A new checkbox in the component editor allows part fit to be deselected.
> By default all components are selected. (UI placement not final, just for
> demonstration).
>
> 
>
> Note that when rendered in the schematic, DNF parts are denoted by
> appended text after the RefDes field.
>
> Altium denotes DNF parts with a large red cross - I think that greying out
> DNF parts would look quite nice.
>
> *B. DNF part status is saved in the .sch schematic file*
>
> If a part is DNF , then the component line in the .sch file is appended:
>
> 
>
> Parts which *are* fitted do not get updated - to reduce file changes.
>
> As far as I can tell, this file change is fully backwards and forwards
> compatible. Old versions can open the file and simply ignore the DNF
> parameter. So perhaps this can be pushed into production before 6.x branch
> as it won't break any schematics.
>
> *C. Fitment status saved in exported netlist file*
>
> The fitment status of each component is saved to the exported netlist file.
>
> 
>
> So all this at least allows fit / DNF status to appear to the BOM tools.
>
> What's left?
>
> *1. PCBNEW*
>
> DNF status should be pushed to PCBEW, because:
>
>
>- Don't show 3D models for parts which are marked as DNF
>- Don't export DNF parts to the PnP files
>- (Eventually) ability to switch between assembly variants in PCBNEW
>
> However, this would require a file format change to the .kicad_pcb file,
> and this does not have the same opportunity for version compatibility that
> the simpler .sch files do.
>
> I can make this happen, but I'm guessing it has to wait for the 6.x branch.
>
> A simple example of how this could be included in the file:
>
> 
>
> *2. Multi-Unit Parts*
>
> If you mark one unit of a multi-unit part as DNF then *all* other units
> should be marked as DNF too.
>
> Question: How (from SCH_EDIT_FRAME context) do I find all the components
> that are the same master component as a given sub-part?
>
> *3. Better Display of DNF parts*
>
> I'd like to add a "greyed out" display for DNF parts in the schematic
> viewer.
>
> *4. Nomenclature*
>
> In the files I have used "DNF" or "fitted" - what should the accepted
> nomenclature be here? I've seen DNF / DNP / NC and other examples used. I'd
> like to get some clarity on what I should use going forward.
>
> As I said above, I'd like to move this on to support a full assembly
> variant management system but I feel it's best to wait until new file
> formats. Until then, some feedback on the items above would be great.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Oliver
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
> 

Re: [Kicad-developers] [RFQ] - Do Not Fit

[Jeff Young]

Hi Oliver,

I think we need to fit this in with the existing PCBNew Attributes stuff 
(“attr” in the file format).  We currently have through-hole, SMD and virtual 
(the later being similar to DNF/DNP), but a lot of folks have found that too 
limiting for various reasons.  I suspect this means we need user-defined 
attributes, but I’m not sure how many “system-defined” ones we’d also want to 
support.

Allowing advance specification of the attributes in Eeschema would be a nice 
enhancement.  But due to file format changes (on at least the PCBNew side) it 
would have to wait for 6.0.

Cheers,
Jeff.


> On 25 Nov 2018, at 04:38, Oliver Walters  
> wrote:
> 
> A feature I feel has been missing from KiCad is the ability to mark parts as 
> "DNF" (Do Not Fit) so they are excluded from assembly files (BoM / PnP / etc).
> 
> Many of the existing BoM tools (including mine) offer "hacks" to get around 
> this shortfall by having a special field assigned to each component, for 
> example.
> 
> I have a branch working towards such functionality and am looking for some 
> feedback.
> 
> I consider this preliminary work towards full support of assembly variants. 
> However this will need to wait until the new file format to be properly 
> implemented. So for now, only DNF status is presented.
> 
> Here are the features I have implemented so far:
> 
> A. Schematic components can be marked as "DNF" 
> 
> A new checkbox in the component editor allows part fit to be deselected. By 
> default all components are selected. (UI placement not final, just for 
> demonstration).
> 
> 
> 
> Note that when rendered in the schematic, DNF parts are denoted by appended 
> text after the RefDes field.
> 
> Altium denotes DNF parts with a large red cross - I think that greying out 
> DNF parts would look quite nice.
> 
> B. DNF part status is saved in the .sch schematic file
> 
> If a part is DNF , then the component line in the .sch file is appended:
> 
> 
> 
> Parts which *are* fitted do not get updated - to reduce file changes.
> 
> As far as I can tell, this file change is fully backwards and forwards 
> compatible. Old versions can open the file and simply ignore the DNF 
> parameter. So perhaps this can be pushed into production before 6.x branch as 
> it won't break any schematics.
> 
> C. Fitment status saved in exported netlist file
> 
> The fitment status of each component is saved to the exported netlist file.
> 
> 
> 
> So all this at least allows fit / DNF status to appear to the BOM tools.
> 
> What's left?
> 
> 1. PCBNEW
> 
> DNF status should be pushed to PCBEW, because:
> 
> Don't show 3D models for parts which are marked as DNF
> Don't export DNF parts to the PnP files
> (Eventually) ability to switch between assembly variants in PCBNEW
> However, this would require a file format change to the .kicad_pcb file, and 
> this does not have the same opportunity for version compatibility that the 
> simpler .sch files do.
> 
> I can make this happen, but I'm guessing it has to wait for the 6.x branch.
> 
> A simple example of how this could be included in the file:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Multi-Unit Parts
> 
> If you mark one unit of a multi-unit part as DNF then *all* other units 
> should be marked as DNF too.
> 
> Question: How (from SCH_EDIT_FRAME context) do I find all the components that 
> are the same master component as a given sub-part?
> 
> 3. Better Display of DNF parts
> 
> I'd like to add a "greyed out" display for DNF parts in the schematic viewer.
> 
> 4. Nomenclature
> 
> In the files I have used "DNF" or "fitted" - what should the accepted 
> nomenclature be here? I've seen DNF / DNP / NC and other examples used. I'd 
> like to get some clarity on what I should use going forward.
> 
> As I said above, I'd like to move this on to support a full assembly variant 
> management system but I feel it's best to wait until new file formats. Until 
> then, some feedback on the items above would be great.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Oliver
> 
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] [RFQ] - Do Not Fit

[Jon Evans]

I've often seen "NC" used to mean "no connect" which usually is the "X"
symbol you put on pins to prevent ERC warnings.

DNP is also the one I've seen the most. I actually have heard from a
(US-based) assembly vendor that DNP is the most common, DNI is next after
that, and all other options are way less common.

-Jon


On Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 07:42 Mark Roszko  >In the files I have used "DNF" or "fitted" - what should the accepted
> nomenclature be here? I've seen DNF / DNP / NC and other examples used. I'd
> like to get some clarity on what I should use going forward.
>
>
> By far I've always seen DNP in mass usage. "Do not populate". I've seen
> "NC" less often for "No component", even my current workplace used it. But
> now the PCB assembly machines we received 3 years ago demand we use the
> term "DNP" when we upload the BOM into their systems.
>
> "Fitted" actually is a terrible word because of say, you accidentally
> specced a wide body SOIC and need it to go into a normal body SOIC
> footprint, and you tell the PCB assembler to make it fit. Lol.
>
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 5:19 AM Oliver Walters <
> oliver.henry.walt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Frank,
>>
>> That's a good idea,I hadn't thought of that. I'll add it to my working
>> document.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, 20:00 >
>>> Hi Oliver
>>>
>>> This looks very nice! A plot option to disable DNF components in paste
>>> layer would be nice
>>>
>>>
>>> 25. nov. 2018 05.38 skrev Oliver Walters >> >:
>>>
>>> A feature I feel has been missing from KiCad is the ability to mark
>>> parts as "DNF" (Do Not Fit) so they are excluded from assembly files (BoM /
>>> PnP / etc).
>>>
>>> Many of the existing BoM tools (including mine) offer "hacks" to get
>>> around this shortfall by having a special field assigned to each component,
>>> for example.
>>>
>>> I have a branch working towards such functionality and am looking for
>>> some feedback.
>>>
>>> I consider this preliminary work towards full support of assembly
>>> variants. However this will need to wait until the new file format to be
>>> properly implemented. So for now, only DNF status is presented.
>>>
>>> Here are the features I have implemented so far:
>>>
>>> *A. Schematic components can be marked as "DNF" *
>>>
>>> A new checkbox in the component editor allows part fit to be deselected.
>>> By default all components are selected. (UI placement not final, just for
>>> demonstration).
>>>
>>> [image: image.png]
>>>
>>> Note that when rendered in the schematic, DNF parts are denoted by
>>> appended text after the RefDes field.
>>>
>>> Altium denotes DNF parts with a large red cross - I think that greying
>>> out DNF parts would look quite nice.
>>>
>>> *B. DNF part status is saved in the .sch schematic file*
>>>
>>> If a part is DNF , then the component line in the .sch file is appended:
>>>
>>> [image: image.png]
>>>
>>> Parts which *are* fitted do not get updated - to reduce file changes.
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, this file change is fully backwards and forwards
>>> compatible. Old versions can open the file and simply ignore the DNF
>>> parameter. So perhaps this can be pushed into production before 6.x branch
>>> as it won't break any schematics.
>>>
>>> *C. Fitment status saved in exported netlist file*
>>>
>>> The fitment status of each component is saved to the exported netlist
>>> file.
>>>
>>> [image: image.png]
>>>
>>> So all this at least allows fit / DNF status to appear to the BOM tools.
>>>
>>> What's left?
>>>
>>> *1. PCBNEW*
>>>
>>> DNF status should be pushed to PCBEW, because:
>>>
>>>
>>>- Don't show 3D models for parts which are marked as DNF
>>>- Don't export DNF parts to the PnP files
>>>- (Eventually) ability to switch between assembly variants in PCBNEW
>>>
>>> However, this would require a file format change to the .kicad_pcb file,
>>> and this does not have the same opportunity for version compatibility that
>>> the simpler .sch files do.
>>>
>>> I can make this happen, but I'm guessing it has to wait for the 6.x
>>> branch.
>>>
>>> A simple example of how this could be included in the file:
>>>
>>> [image: image.png]
>>>
>>> *2. Multi-Unit Parts*
>>>
>>> If you mark one unit of a multi-unit part as DNF then *all* other units
>>> should be marked as DNF too.
>>>
>>> Question: How (from SCH_EDIT_FRAME context) do I find all the components
>>> that are the same master component as a given sub-part?
>>>
>>> *3. Better Display of DNF parts*
>>>
>>> I'd like to add a "greyed out" display for DNF parts in the schematic
>>> viewer.
>>>
>>> *4. Nomenclature*
>>>
>>> In the files I have used "DNF" or "fitted" - what should the accepted
>>> nomenclature be here? I've seen DNF / DNP / NC and other examples used. I'd
>>> like to get some clarity on what I should use going forward.
>>>
>>> As I said above, I'd like to move this on to support a full assembly
>>> variant management system but I feel it's best to wait until new file
>>> formats. Until then, some 

Re: [Kicad-developers] [RFQ] - Do Not Fit

[Mark Roszko]

>In the files I have used "DNF" or "fitted" - what should the accepted
nomenclature be here? I've seen DNF / DNP / NC and other examples used. I'd
like to get some clarity on what I should use going forward.


By far I've always seen DNP in mass usage. "Do not populate". I've seen
"NC" less often for "No component", even my current workplace used it. But
now the PCB assembly machines we received 3 years ago demand we use the
term "DNP" when we upload the BOM into their systems.

"Fitted" actually is a terrible word because of say, you accidentally
specced a wide body SOIC and need it to go into a normal body SOIC
footprint, and you tell the PCB assembler to make it fit. Lol.

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 5:19 AM Oliver Walters <
oliver.henry.walt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Frank,
>
> That's a good idea,I hadn't thought of that. I'll add it to my working
> document.
>
> Cheers,
>
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, 20:00 
>> Hi Oliver
>>
>> This looks very nice! A plot option to disable DNF components in paste
>> layer would be nice
>>
>>
>> 25. nov. 2018 05.38 skrev Oliver Walters > >:
>>
>> A feature I feel has been missing from KiCad is the ability to mark parts
>> as "DNF" (Do Not Fit) so they are excluded from assembly files (BoM / PnP /
>> etc).
>>
>> Many of the existing BoM tools (including mine) offer "hacks" to get
>> around this shortfall by having a special field assigned to each component,
>> for example.
>>
>> I have a branch working towards such functionality and am looking for
>> some feedback.
>>
>> I consider this preliminary work towards full support of assembly
>> variants. However this will need to wait until the new file format to be
>> properly implemented. So for now, only DNF status is presented.
>>
>> Here are the features I have implemented so far:
>>
>> *A. Schematic components can be marked as "DNF" *
>>
>> A new checkbox in the component editor allows part fit to be deselected.
>> By default all components are selected. (UI placement not final, just for
>> demonstration).
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>> Note that when rendered in the schematic, DNF parts are denoted by
>> appended text after the RefDes field.
>>
>> Altium denotes DNF parts with a large red cross - I think that greying
>> out DNF parts would look quite nice.
>>
>> *B. DNF part status is saved in the .sch schematic file*
>>
>> If a part is DNF , then the component line in the .sch file is appended:
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>> Parts which *are* fitted do not get updated - to reduce file changes.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, this file change is fully backwards and forwards
>> compatible. Old versions can open the file and simply ignore the DNF
>> parameter. So perhaps this can be pushed into production before 6.x branch
>> as it won't break any schematics.
>>
>> *C. Fitment status saved in exported netlist file*
>>
>> The fitment status of each component is saved to the exported netlist
>> file.
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>> So all this at least allows fit / DNF status to appear to the BOM tools.
>>
>> What's left?
>>
>> *1. PCBNEW*
>>
>> DNF status should be pushed to PCBEW, because:
>>
>>
>>- Don't show 3D models for parts which are marked as DNF
>>- Don't export DNF parts to the PnP files
>>- (Eventually) ability to switch between assembly variants in PCBNEW
>>
>> However, this would require a file format change to the .kicad_pcb file,
>> and this does not have the same opportunity for version compatibility that
>> the simpler .sch files do.
>>
>> I can make this happen, but I'm guessing it has to wait for the 6.x
>> branch.
>>
>> A simple example of how this could be included in the file:
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>> *2. Multi-Unit Parts*
>>
>> If you mark one unit of a multi-unit part as DNF then *all* other units
>> should be marked as DNF too.
>>
>> Question: How (from SCH_EDIT_FRAME context) do I find all the components
>> that are the same master component as a given sub-part?
>>
>> *3. Better Display of DNF parts*
>>
>> I'd like to add a "greyed out" display for DNF parts in the schematic
>> viewer.
>>
>> *4. Nomenclature*
>>
>> In the files I have used "DNF" or "fitted" - what should the accepted
>> nomenclature be here? I've seen DNF / DNP / NC and other examples used. I'd
>> like to get some clarity on what I should use going forward.
>>
>> As I said above, I'd like to move this on to support a full assembly
>> variant management system but I feel it's best to wait until new file
>> formats. Until then, some feedback on the items above would be great.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Oliver
>>
>>
>> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>


-- 
Mark
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : 

Re: [Kicad-developers] [RFQ] - Do Not Fit

[Oliver Walters]

Frank,

That's a good idea,I hadn't thought of that. I'll add it to my working
document.

Cheers,

On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, 20:00  Hi Oliver
>
> This looks very nice! A plot option to disable DNF components in paste
> layer would be nice
>
>
> 25. nov. 2018 05.38 skrev Oliver Walters :
>
> A feature I feel has been missing from KiCad is the ability to mark parts
> as "DNF" (Do Not Fit) so they are excluded from assembly files (BoM / PnP /
> etc).
>
> Many of the existing BoM tools (including mine) offer "hacks" to get
> around this shortfall by having a special field assigned to each component,
> for example.
>
> I have a branch working towards such functionality and am looking for some
> feedback.
>
> I consider this preliminary work towards full support of assembly
> variants. However this will need to wait until the new file format to be
> properly implemented. So for now, only DNF status is presented.
>
> Here are the features I have implemented so far:
>
> *A. Schematic components can be marked as "DNF" *
>
> A new checkbox in the component editor allows part fit to be deselected.
> By default all components are selected. (UI placement not final, just for
> demonstration).
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> Note that when rendered in the schematic, DNF parts are denoted by
> appended text after the RefDes field.
>
> Altium denotes DNF parts with a large red cross - I think that greying out
> DNF parts would look quite nice.
>
> *B. DNF part status is saved in the .sch schematic file*
>
> If a part is DNF , then the component line in the .sch file is appended:
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> Parts which *are* fitted do not get updated - to reduce file changes.
>
> As far as I can tell, this file change is fully backwards and forwards
> compatible. Old versions can open the file and simply ignore the DNF
> parameter. So perhaps this can be pushed into production before 6.x branch
> as it won't break any schematics.
>
> *C. Fitment status saved in exported netlist file*
>
> The fitment status of each component is saved to the exported netlist file.
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> So all this at least allows fit / DNF status to appear to the BOM tools.
>
> What's left?
>
> *1. PCBNEW*
>
> DNF status should be pushed to PCBEW, because:
>
>
>- Don't show 3D models for parts which are marked as DNF
>- Don't export DNF parts to the PnP files
>- (Eventually) ability to switch between assembly variants in PCBNEW
>
> However, this would require a file format change to the .kicad_pcb file,
> and this does not have the same opportunity for version compatibility that
> the simpler .sch files do.
>
> I can make this happen, but I'm guessing it has to wait for the 6.x branch.
>
> A simple example of how this could be included in the file:
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> *2. Multi-Unit Parts*
>
> If you mark one unit of a multi-unit part as DNF then *all* other units
> should be marked as DNF too.
>
> Question: How (from SCH_EDIT_FRAME context) do I find all the components
> that are the same master component as a given sub-part?
>
> *3. Better Display of DNF parts*
>
> I'd like to add a "greyed out" display for DNF parts in the schematic
> viewer.
>
> *4. Nomenclature*
>
> In the files I have used "DNF" or "fitted" - what should the accepted
> nomenclature be here? I've seen DNF / DNP / NC and other examples used. I'd
> like to get some clarity on what I should use going forward.
>
> As I said above, I'd like to move this on to support a full assembly
> variant management system but I feel it's best to wait until new file
> formats. Until then, some feedback on the items above would be great.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Oliver
>
>
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] [RFQ] - Do Not Fit

[frank]

Hi OliverThis looks very nice! A plot option to disable DNF components in paste layer would be nice 25. nov. 2018 05.38 skrev Oliver Walters :A feature I feel has been missing from KiCad is the ability to mark parts as "DNF" (Do Not Fit) so they are excluded from assembly files (BoM / PnP / etc).Many of the existing BoM tools (including mine) offer "hacks" to get around this shortfall by having a special field assigned to each component, for example.I have a branch working towards such functionality and am looking for some feedback.I consider this preliminary work towards full support of assembly variants. However this will need to wait until the new file format to be properly implemented. So for now, only DNF status is presented.Here are the features I have implemented so far:A. Schematic components can be marked as "DNF" A new checkbox in the component editor allows part fit to be deselected. By default all components are selected. (UI placement not final, just for demonstration).Note that when rendered in the schematic, DNF parts are denoted by appended text after the RefDes field.Altium denotes DNF parts with a large red cross - I think that greying out DNF parts would look quite nice.B. DNF part status is saved in the .sch schematic fileIf a part is DNF , then the component line in the .sch file is appended:Parts which *are* fitted do not get updated - to reduce file changes.As far as I can tell, this file change is fully backwards and forwards compatible. Old versions can open the file and simply ignore the DNF parameter. So perhaps this can be pushed into production before 6.x branch as it won't break any schematics.C. Fitment status saved in exported netlist fileThe fitment status of each component is saved to the exported netlist file.So all this at least allows fit / DNF status to appear to the BOM tools.What's left?1. PCBNEWDNF status should be pushed to PCBEW, because:Don't show 3D models for parts which are marked as DNFDon't export DNF parts to the PnP files(Eventually) ability to switch between assembly variants in PCBNEWHowever, this would require a file format change to the .kicad_pcb file, and this does not have the same opportunity for version compatibility that the simpler .sch files do.I can make this happen, but I'm guessing it has to wait for the 6.x branch.A simple example of how this could be included in the file:2. Multi-Unit PartsIf you mark one unit of a multi-unit part as DNF then *all* other units should be marked as DNF too.Question: How (from SCH_EDIT_FRAME context) do I find all the components that are the same master component as a given sub-part?3. Better Display of DNF partsI'd like to add a "greyed out" display for DNF parts in the schematic viewer.4. NomenclatureIn the files I have used "DNF" or "fitted" - what should the accepted nomenclature be here? I've seen DNF / DNP / NC and other examples used. I'd like to get some clarity on what I should use going forward.As I said above, I'd like to move this on to support a full assembly variant management system but I feel it's best to wait until new file formats. Until then, some feedback on the items above would be great.Thanks,Oliver
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] [RFQ] - Do Not Fit

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

su 25. marrask. 2018 klo 6.38 Oliver Walters (oliver.henry.walt...@gmail.com)
kirjoitti:

>
>
>- (Eventually) ability to switch between assembly variants in PCBNEW
>
>
 We regularly need several independent variants in the same board. For
example two different regulators for different kinds of power needs, and
then two alternative led positions for different chassis options, and some
optional sections "just in case" which can be bypassed with 0 Ohm resistors.

Eeli Kaikkonen
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp