@overthere, I can’t seem to find your board file. Can you send it again?
(I have a “SRC_Power_Adapter”, but it’s been cut down so much to isolate a bug that I can’t tell if it was the one you sent me or not. I also have a “vhf_uhf_com” and “motherboard” from about the right time-frame, but those don’t look right either.)
Aha! That is ingenious. (Or was it you? I’m not sure.)
Still I would like to know where they come from and preferably have some documentation - although many of them look self-explanatory.
Well, the whole thing is advanced functionality for power users as far as I can see, so I don’t expect it to be easy for beginners. But in the end it needs good documentation to be useful. It’s like a simple programming language and programming library!
This thing is still in heavy flux, people are debating what properties to include, what the syntax should be, etc. There will certainly be documentation after it is more settled
Do you invent the property and function names for each case for this rule system, or do they come from somewhere else? Are they in any way documented in the KiCad code?
And it uses last clearance, so the condition does not seem to have an effect. You can reproduce this with the testboard. (Blue and orange should not have the same distance)
But the layer examples I provided are just ones we’re thinking about. We haven’t decided which to use yet, so none of them are implemented at present.
I did tighten up the code so it will catch these errors.
I’m also concerned about the error dialog you did get not reporting the layer name correctly (the box between the quotes means “unknown character”). What locale are you using?
Dear Jeff (@JeffYoung) , I am using locale de, so Germany. I guess the error came from the non finished implementation. I guess its not to crucial for now.
Now i understand what you want to propose. Thanks for the clarification. To be honest, i think that will lead to a lot of non specification meeting pcbs. And its counter intuitive to the user.
The user should just specify the required clearance. For the implementation, the filling should also check on which layer it is. So the filling algorithm should ask for the clearance on the specific layer only. Ex. Gnd2 should ask for the via clearance only for Gnd2. And not ‘i meet a via and what clearance am i?’ instead it should ask. ‘i am on this (struct of type, layer, netclass) and i meet that (same struct of before )’ maybe that implementation could work…
@JeffYoung
Tested again (version kicad-r16539.0fecb5f27-x86_64.exe) ,and the error message looks different now. Have a look at the large offset. May it be, that something is not initialized. (And to be honest, it should not show an error, here, i checked, everything is fine. Maybe this gives you a helpful hint.
I just got this message. So others please join. =)
Let others join the conversation
This topic is clearly important to you – you’ve posted more than 20% of the replies here.
It could be even better if you gave other people space to share their points of view, too. Can you invite them over?