Hi Miguel, Thanks for the clarification. I can now appreciate the difference. In this case it's indeed more useful to have a minimum size that won't be 0.
Actually I thought these were 1nm steps. My intent was to have every courtyard size to be rounded to 0.1mm and thus land on a 0.05mm grid as specified in the KLC. Anyway I tested it on a couple of footprints and it seems to be giving the expected result. Thanks for reviewing and for the explanation! On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo < majop...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi Mikael, > > Sorry, my comment is probably irrelevant, > > sizex = (int(sizex/100000)+1)*100000 > > vs > > sizex = (int((sizex+(100000-1))/100000))*100000 > > > for sizex of 0, on the first one you end up with 100000 > while on the second you end up with 0 > > and for sizex of 1, both render the same result. > > Anyway, given those are 10nm steps, you probably don’t care, and actually > you want to start by 1mm minimum, > right?, so your function would be more appropriate. > > Cheers :) > > On 14 Feb 2016, at 15:28, Mikael Arguedas <mikael.argue...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Miguel, > > The question may seem silly (sorry I'm an EE guy who doesnt know much > about computer science). How is your suggested implementation of ceil > better? Is it a matter of stability ? performance ? > They seem completely identical to me in terms of performance and result > but I'd really like to learn where I mistaken. > > Thanks! > MIkael > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Mikael Arguedas < > mikael.argue...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi guys, >> >> Here is an updated version of the patch, I removed the textSize fix >> because it has already been merged here >> <https://lists.launchpad.net/kicad-developers/msg23113.html>. >> >> Cheers, >> Mikael Arguedas >> >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Mikael Arguedas < >> mikael.argue...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Miguel, >>> >>> I'm new to bazaar and that's the reason I started by just submitting >>> patch files but for any further feature addition I'll send a branch for >>> review. >>> >>> Yes the purpose of this function was to perform a ceil. Either of these >>> implementations is good for me given that they have the same complexity and >>> the same result. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Mikael Arguedas >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo < >>> majop...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, Mikael, I haven’t fully looked at the patch, it would be easier if >>>> you can send a branch for review via launchpad. >>>> >>>> But, Could you explain those changes: >>>> >>>> === modified file 'pcbnew/scripting/plugins/qfp_wizard.py' >>>> --- pcbnew/scripting/plugins/qfp_wizard.py 2016-02-11 15:02:37 +0000 >>>> +++ pcbnew/scripting/plugins/qfp_wizard.py 2016-02-12 03:39:11 +0000 >>>> @@ -113,6 +113,8 @@ >>>> self.draw.SetLayer(pcbnew.F_CrtYd) >>>> sizex = (lim_x + cmargin) * 2 + pad_length >>>> sizey = (lim_y + cmargin) * 2 + pad_length >>>> + sizex = (int(sizex/100000)+1)*100000 >>>> + sizey = (int(sizey/100000)+1)*100000 >>>> >>>> >>>> --- pcbnew/scripting/plugins/zip_wizard.py 2016-02-11 15:02:37 +0000 >>>> +++ pcbnew/scripting/plugins/zip_wizard.py 2016-02-12 03:31:52 +0000 >>>> @@ -106,6 +106,8 @@ >>>> thick = self.draw.GetLineThickness() >>>> sizex = (pin1posX + cmarginx) * 2 + pad_Hsize + thick >>>> sizey = (pin1posY + cmarginy) * 2 + pad_Vsize + thick >>>> + sizex = (int(sizex/100000)+1)*100000 >>>> + sizey = (int(sizey/100000)+1)*100000 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The semantics for size x/y seem very different. :) >>>> >>>> Also, are you trying to round here? >>>> + sizex = (int(sizex/100000)+1)*100000 >>>> + sizey = (int(sizey/100000)+1)*100000 >>>> >>>> Wouldn’t it be better like >>>> sizex = (int((sizex+(100000-1))/100000))*100000 >>>> (if you were trying to do a ceil?) >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Miguel Ángel >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12 Feb 2016, at 05:03, Mikael Arguedas <mikael.argue...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi guys, >>>> >>>> Here is the updated patch including changes from >>>> https://lists.launchpad.net/kicad-developers/msg23059.html >>>> This patch fixes the following KLC violations in the generated >>>> footprints: >>>> - fixes the text size as specified in rule 6.9 >>>> - rounds the courtyard position on a 0.05mm grid as specified in rule >>>> 6.6 >>>> - set the attribute for SMD components as specified in rule 10.5 >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Mikael Arguedas >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Mikael Arguedas < >>>> mikael.argue...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi guys, >>>>> >>>>> Sorry for spamming. >>>>> This patch sets the footprint attibute to SMD if needed. This allows >>>>> the generated footprints to comply with KLC rule 10.5. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Mikael Arguedas >>>>> >>>> >>>> <fixWizards.patch>_______________________________________________ >>>> 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
