Re: [PEDA] (re)Annotation weirdness when using suffix
At 05:17 PM 7/12/01 +0100, Steve Wiseman wrote:
Hmm. If you use numeric allocation offset (start this sheet at 100, etc),
the annotator gets it completely right - no allocation re-use. This is a
straightforward, easy to understand, bug. We've all done similar.
Actually, it does not get it right, according to what we usually want and
might well expect from how Annotate behaves under other circumstances. If I
have a C101A, and two C?, and annotate with starting 100 and suffix A, you
will end up with the original C101A plus C100A and C101A, the designator
has been duplicated.
It is only if we set the offset higher than any existing number, such that
no old numbers are in the assigned range, that the results are correct.
I don't
think there's a need to complicate that dialog with a 'reuse designators'
box - if that's what's wanted, then 'reset designators' elsewhere is the
way to go, and already exists.
Problem is that the existing behavior is not good enough to deal properly
with the subject situation. Yes, you can reset designators and that will
solve one problem, but, as in the present situation, it will create
another, the lack of correspondence of designators between the old
schematic and the new one. This can make quite a mess.
The synchronizer might handle it properly, but it would not fix any
accessory documentation, like the note that says Do not stuff C101A.
to get around this one might re-annotate the whole page from scratch --
the
most likely to be easiest procedure unless one has become fixed on those
existing numbers
that was indeed the case. The components are on the PCB - I just wanted a
few more. (series termination resistors, you know the deal...)
This is a common situation
--, or, in case one wishes to keep them, remove the
suffixes for the page, reannotate without using the advanced options, then
add the suffixes using global edit. This is the old way, and almost as
fast
as the new. It does require knowing how to use the global editor
replacement criteria, which can be intimidating, but it is worth learning.
Care to talk me / us through that? I've sometimes wondered how to drive
the global editor harder,and this looks like a good example...
(removing and re-adding trailing 'A' to all part designators on this
sheet)
Okay, you have components already on the schematic sheet with a A suffix.
You have added components which have ? as a number. You want to add the new
components and have them with non-duplicated numbers even though they have
an A suffix.
It is easiest if you want all the parts on the sheet numbered with A. If
so, first of all, the numbers must be reduced from A suffix to normal
suffix. Do this with a global edit on any one of the A suffixed parts to
eliminate the A. Then do a normal annotate. Then add A to all the parts on
the sheet.
Global edits work on match criteria. When the match criteria are met, the
part which meets them will be edited. Double-click on any A part to bring
up the edit menu. Press the Global button. Under Attributes to Match By, in
the Designator field, enter
*A
In the Copy Attributes/Designator Field, enter
{A=}
Those are curly braces, not parenthesis. This will cause the string A: to
be replaced by the null string. I.e., it is deleted.
You should get an edit message telling you how many parts are going to be
edited. Be sure you don't have All Documents set in the Change Scope
field or you will also edit other sheets! Accept the message if it looks
right. All your parts should now have no suffix.
Annotate normally, then use a global edit on all parts on the sheet to add
A to the designators.
And here I run into a brick wall. I have a vague memory that we have
discussed in the past a shortcoming of the global edit Copy Attribute
operation. I could find no way to use it to add a suffix. Perhaps someone
knows how to do this!
If it is true that global edits on designators cannot be used to add
suffixes, that is a serious shortcoming, all the more so because, if I am
correct, it was identified long ago. Anyway, I'll wait before putting my
foot even deeper into my mouth.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
P.O. Box 690
El Verano, CA 95433
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
* - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] (re)Annotation weirdness when using suffix
Steve Wiseman wrote: And here I run into a brick wall. I have a vague memory that we have discussed in the past a shortcoming of the global edit Copy Attribute operation. I could find no way to use it to add a suffix. Perhaps someone knows how to do this! Hmm. Not me... Is this the kind of thing I ought to be using macros / hand-crafted servers for? (obviously not for this particular problem, which can be solved elsewhere, but it's a nice, small, clearly defined problem...) Take a look at the (freeware) server called Reference Designator Modifier on the downloads page of: http://www.qualecad.com/ It can add arbitrary suffixes and/or increment reference designators of user selected schematic and PCB components. Does this do what you need? John Williams * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] (re)Annotation weirdness when using suffix
At 07:30 AM 7/13/01 -0700, John Williams wrote:
Take a look at the (freeware) server called Reference Designator
Modifier on the downloads page of:
http://www.qualecad.com/
It can add arbitrary suffixes and/or increment reference designators of
user selected schematic and PCB components.
Does this do what you need?
This is exactly what is needed, assuming it works, which I have not
checked. I'd be astonished if it did not work
That the global editor is missing the most elementary ability of adding
suffixes is one of the more glaring deficiencies in Schematic. Of course,
some programs don't have *any* global editor, but still
We can't call it a bug, because they never promised that it *would* add
suffixes. I think it won't add prefixes, either. The basic problem is that
the string substitution method only works with an identified string, as in
the example in the manual {D=Data}, which will expand D to Data wherever it
occurs in the target fields. If they merely read
{}A
in the Copy field as meaning add 'A' to the end of the string, it would
help, but it appears that Copy does not recognise anything outside of the
brackets if the brackets are present.
But the Annotate/Advanced tool should be improved. Among other things, it
should be able to do what the Qualecad server does. It is clear that the
Advanced tab was added to be able to deal with repeat sections, and, as
often happens when Protel gives us a new tool, something was overlooked.
More user involvement in the planning of these improvements, possibly with
prerelease servers that could be widely tested, would make it more likely
that first release would not need more tweaking.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
P.O. Box 690
El Verano, CA 95433
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
* - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] (re)Annotation weirdness when using suffix
At 10:27 AM 7/13/01 +0100, Steve Wiseman wrote: [some response which was rooted in a misunderstanding of the full meanings of my statements. It appears that we both agree on how the program actually works and any differences were only semantic. It is moot who said it the most correctly.] If the Advanced Tab is used to annotate ? parts with a suffix, it will duplicate already-existing designators within the annotation range. So if R1A already exists, and new R parts are added as R?, and then Annotate/Advance is run to annotate all ? parts, and the range is set as 1-n with suffix A, another R1A will be assigned, so that there are now two. This is a nuisance if one wants to keep existing suffixed reference designators, which would be quite common on revisions, actually, in my experience, it is the norm. If one does not use a suffix, then Annotate will not duplicate designators, so, in the case given, only with no suffix on Annotate, one will end up with an R1 and an R1A. Annotate is getting it right with respect to its instructions, but this is likewise not satisfactory, since the A suffix is being used to indicate that these parts are in the A section of a multi-section design. I ended up agreeing that this was a bug, of sorts; the nature of the bug is that checking for existing designators was omitted from the process of Advanced Annotation. It should not duplicate designators, period. We do not use an Annotate tool in order to get duplicate designators. It appears that the programmer only considered the possibility that we were completely annotating a section for the first time, i.e., annotate was set to all parts, in which case it would overwrite existing designators. [and I wrote:] Problem is that the existing behavior is not good enough to deal properly with the subject situation. Yes, you can reset designators and that will solve one problem, but, as in the present situation, it will create another, the lack of correspondence of designators between the old schematic and the new one. This can make quite a mess. [and Mr. Wiseman responded:] I've never experienced this, and I've added components to many schematics without forcing a renumbering. Protel gets this right, unless you're using suffixes, which I'd not tried before. Yes, if you do not use suffixes, Protel handles the annotation correctly. However, that is not what I was describing. I was describing the use of Reset Designators, which, by definition, forces a renumbering as if none had existed. I am not confident that the Synchronizer will properly handle this. It might, but I'd want to make sure that everything was solidly backed up in a way that it could be recovered even if I thought everything was running fine. The old Netlist Load procedure would be completely bollixed, as would have been just about every CAD system out there. PCB designer's least favorite message from engineer: I made some changes to the schematic and so that everything will be nicely numbered now, I re-annotated. Please add the new parts and make the changes on the PCB. I had this happen to me with a 20-page schematic done in Tango. I managed to recover by writing a utility that analysed the symbol positions on the schematic pages and made a correspondence table, then I used another PCB was-is utility to renumber the PCB to the new numbers. But it was at least a day's work. The synchronizer might handle it properly, but it would not fix any accessory documentation, like the note that says Do not stuff C101A. That information I keep in a separate file as a kindness to my assemblers. Since there's no C101A in the BOM or on the board, it's not terribly important information, it just helps reduce confusion. Not in this case. I'm writing about the general case. There may or be such accessory documentation, either as notes on an assembly drawing or elsewhere. The designer might not even be aware of such notes if there is anyone else involved, such as an engineer checking the project or a purchasing agent. When I am working on a client project, a lot of information may be passed back and forth with specific instructions about keep U6 close to U17, for example. If the design is renumbered, all those notes become next to meaningless. This is why I'm not a big fan of renumbering, but that is really a separate question. We want to be able to renumber, and we want to be able to intelligently add new designators without renumbering the existing ones. And here I run into a brick wall. I have a vague memory that we have discussed in the past a shortcoming of the global edit Copy Attribute operation. I could find no way to use it to add a suffix. Perhaps someone knows how to do this! Hmm. Not me... Is this the kind of thing I ought to be using macros / hand-crafted servers for? (obviously not for this particular problem, which can be solved elsewhere, but it's a nice, small, clearly defined problem...) By
Re: [PEDA] (re)Annotation weirdness when using suffix
On 12:28 PM 11/07/2001 +0100, Steve Wiseman said: Hi, all. Using SE99, SP6, I've got what looks like a bug... I'm annotating a single sheet, which will become part of a bigger project, and I'm annotating using the suffix 'A' to indicate the parts are in the ADSL section. All is well - on first annotation, everything gets R1A, C19A, whatever you'd expect. I added some components, all R?, and hit reannotate. Oh joy, it's re-used R1A, R2A, R3A, etc. Looks like it can't spot what's already been used when you use suffixes. Does anyone else get this, and any cunning plan for a workaround? Cheers, Steve. Does sound like a bug - I will await other comments before adding it to the bug database. I suppose someone will try to call it a feature... If you haven't already created parts lists/manufacturing documentation/test reports/design descriptions then you could simply re-annotate all the components on the sheet again. You can either drop the list box on the annotate dialog and select reset all designators and then run the annotation again or you can simply select All Parts and do every thing again. BTW - can you confirm that the second annotation would work OK if you had not used the suffix? (As an aside - I actually rarely use the annotation tool - even for large designs. I usually want to control the numbering to allow gaps for future additions of components (at least in the first rev of a design). And for later revs there is already the manufacturing documentation in existence that means we do not want to monkey will all the designators - just as few as possible. But do not read any of this as saying the bug is not an important one to fix.) Ian Wilson * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] (re)Annotation weirdness when using suffix
Re: [PEDA] (re)Annotation weirdness when using suffix
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I go for the manual approach suggested by others. Hmm.. Major parts of a design have their own independent ref des series - 100s are power supply section, 200s are CPU, 700s are analog, etc. Within these, major subsections get their own decade - analog channel 1 gets 71x, channel 2 gets 72x, etc. This leaves me lots of gaps to add ref des later as needed, without searching the whole design for conflicts But this describes exactly what I get from the automated annotator - doing it manually just seems like a lot of effort I could be spending elsewhere, or at the pub. The last big design I did had some 950 components, and the manufacturing folks scream bloody murder if I go beyond one alpha and three digits because the designators get too big to place on the silkscreen, so this seems to be the only way out. Ah, silkscreens. I remember them. :) Too much of my current workload is wall-to-wall 0402s and silicon - it's all I can do to give a hint as to where components go, and a good pin1 mark. Steve * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] (re)Annotation weirdness when using suffix
At 09:43 PM 7/11/01 +1000, Ian Wilson wrote: Does sound like a bug - I will await other comments before adding it to the bug database. I suppose someone will try to call it a feature... It's not a bug, in my opinion, but neither is it a feature. The lack of a facility is almost never a feature. Perhaps I missed something, but if I did not: In this case the facility that appears to be lacking is the ability to read the mind of the designer, or, stated more charitably, to know what kind of pattern to use when arranging complex designators. The annotation command only knows numbers to add, and it recognizes that a designator has been already used when what it would generate does not exist. If the existing R6, for example, has been renamed R6A, and the annotator sees that R1-R5 have been used, and there is no R6, it will assign it. In the situation described, there is no R6, there is an R6A. You might very well want both. How is it to know otherwise? It was not stated how one wanted the annotator to assign new names, but the generic method of controlling it so that the above behavior does not occur would be to assign a number series with a relatively large offset. So if one were to command the annotator to assign, in the above example, numbers beginning with 1001, the new designators would all begin there. Then one could use global edits keyed on R10?? to modify the names how you wish. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abdulrahman Lomax P.O. Box 690 El Verano, CA 95433 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] (re)Annotation weirdness when using suffix
At 02:35 PM 11/07/01 -0700, you wrote: At 09:43 PM 7/11/01 +1000, Ian Wilson wrote: Does sound like a bug - I will await other comments before adding it to the bug database. I suppose someone will try to call it a feature... It's not a bug, in my opinion, but neither is it a feature. The lack of a facility is almost never a feature. Perhaps I missed something, but if I did not: Your right - you did miss something. Look at the advanced options for Sch Annotation. Observe the ability to automatically add a suffix, re-read the original post and then consider whether it is a bug or not. In this case the facility that appears to be lacking is the ability to read the mind of the designer, or, stated more charitably, to know what kind of pattern to use when arranging complex designators. Nope - it is just being asked to understand the pattern that *it* (the original annotation process) applied. And that is (presumably) being requested again when annotating the new parts. The annotation command only knows numbers to add, and it recognizes that a designator has been already used when what it would generate does not exist. Nope - it knows how to restrict numbering to ranges and how to add a suffix. If the existing R6, for example, has been renamed R6A, and the annotator sees that R1-R5 have been used, and there is no R6, it will assign it. In the situation described, there is no R6, there is an R6A. Nope - the original annotation added the 'A' - it should therefore not get confused when you wish to annotate new parts later in the design process. You might very well want both. How is it to know otherwise? Coz you asked for it in the Advanced options of the Annotate process. It was not stated how one wanted the annotator to assign new names, but the generic method of controlling it so that the above behavior does not occur would be to assign a number series with a relatively large offset. Yes it was - I understood that the original post was discussing failure of the annotate to recognise suffixes that it had previously applied. Basically the annotation process should probably simply remove any non-numeric suffix when determining what designators have been used. More elaborate annotation schemes would require manual annotation or a much more elaborate annotation process (maybe one that supports regular expressions). ..snip I look forward to your reply, Ian Wilson * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * - or email - * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] (re)Annotation weirdness when using suffix
At 09:21 AM 7/12/01 +1000, Ian Wilson wrote:
{I wrote:]
It's not a bug, in my opinion, but neither is it a feature. The lack of a
facility is almost never a feature. Perhaps I missed something, but if I
did not:
Your right - you did miss something. Look at the advanced options for Sch
Annotation. Observe the ability to automatically add a suffix, re-read the
original post and then consider whether it is a bug or not.
I was right on all accounts -- in that paragraph --, but that is pedantic.
I was also missing something. I was quite aware of that possibility, but I
went ahead and, as it turns out, stuck my foot in my mouth, out of a hope
that what I was writing might be useful to a designer in distress, and it
would be at the worst useless.
Yes, now I am more sympathetic to the designation of this as a bug. It's
fairly easy to understand how it got there, and how to work around it, but
it is a bug, that is, the program behavior is other than what a reasonably
sane designer may expect having looked at the menus and knowing the general
behavior of the program..
It duplicates reference designators, which it should never do unless forced
by the Advanced settings.
However, it could be argued that by leaving the re-annotation starting
number at 1, which is what was done, the Annotate tool has been forced to
do just exactly that, which is why I still consider this a missing feature.
It *is* following the literal instructions of the dialog box.
Normally, we would want it to pass over used designators when using the
Advanced Tab options, and this would, indeed, be preferred as default
behavior. I'm not sure I can think of a reason why we would want to do
otherwise. But the history of this tool, if I remember correctly, may
explain why it is now functioning as it is, and why it can still be
considered a missing feature instead of a bug, per se. It is a tool which
does a certain thing and does not go beyond that.
We did not have this Advanced annotation feature until quite recently. When
it was added, the programmer assumed that we were annotating a sheet for
the first time, or he or she did not have the time to add what we would
really want:
A check box that says pass over used designators. Since we would want
this in nearly all cases, this should have been the default behavior, but
the programmer was simply adding a new facility and did not consider all
the implications. The tool works as it was designed; if you have a starting
number, it will honor it and use it regardless of the fact that this number
already exists.
And if the starting number is not specified, it does not analyze the
schematic to determine it, but assumes that the starting number is 1. If
the Advanced Options are set for a sheet, it passes over the routines that
would otherwise determine if a number is available or not and simply starts
with 1 or with whatever number has been specified.
to get around this one might re-annotate the whole page from scratch -- the
most likely to be easiest procedure unless one has become fixed on those
existing numbers --, or, in case one wishes to keep them, remove the
suffixes for the page, reannotate without using the advanced options, then
add the suffixes using global edit. This is the old way, and almost as fast
as the new. It does require knowing how to use the global editor
replacement criteria, which can be intimidating, but it is worth learning.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
P.O. Box 690
El Verano, CA 95433
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
* - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
