Inconsistent custom design rules

[grvstick]

Hello all,

I’m trying to use custom design rules but some parts of it I do not understand.

1. First case: this works

(rule "a"
   (condition "A.Pad_Type == 'Through-hole'")
   (constraint clearance (min 5mm)))

2. But this does not

(rule "a"
	(condition "A.Pad_Type == 'Through-hole' && A.Value == 'HDR*'")
	(constraint clearance (min 5mm)))

3. This does not work as well

(rule "a"
	(condition "A.Pad_Type == 'Through-hole' && A.Reference == 'J102'")
	(constraint clearance (min 5mm)))

I thought it was a issue with combining ‘Pad_Type’ && something else.

4. But this works.

(rule edge 
	(condition "A.Pad_Type == 'SMD' && A.Value != '*Fiducial*'")
	(constraint edge_clearance (min 1mm))
)

5. Without the filter ‘Fiducial’… it catches it. Since the clearance is 0.75mm

(rule edge 
	(condition "A.Pad_Type == 'SMD'")
	(constraint edge_clearance (min 1mm))
)

All of these cases are run in solo. There were no other custom design rules.
A little help would be greatly appreciated.

[eelik]

No, never mind if you already read my removed comment…

Ok, here’s something better. Pads don’t have ref, value etc. Footprints do. You can’t extract the parent footprint of a pad with the current rule syntax.

Custom constraints: ignore edge clearance for some footprints

A.Value is for a footprint, but you need a constraint for a pad. I remember there has been discussion about having access to a “parent” item like A.Footprint.Value, but I think it didn’t lead to anything. Maybe @JeffYoung can say more. Meanwhile you have to use some other condition. EDIT: for example, customize the footprints so that you add pads to a group named “edgepads”. Then use a rule like this: (rule edge (condition "A.memberOf('edgepads')") (constraint edge_clearance (min -1mm)))

[grvstick]

Thanks for the reply, it has shed some light.

The reason why case 4 worked is because it was completely ignored. Somehow combining footprint & pad properties in same object(say, “A”) causing this.

Anyhow there should be a way to combine these logic, any ideas on making this possible?

[eelik]

Read the linked thread; you have to use named group or rule area.

[grvstick]

Solved it with named group. Thanks!