Another example I just thought of (not involving costs): differential pair rules. We could have a category "Trace length mismatch" (or some other name...), and then someone could define rules such that: Rule 1) If mismatch > x, flag the "Trace length mismatch" as an error Rule 2) If mismatch > y, flag the "Trace length mismatch" as a warning
When x > y and rule 1 is a higher priority, this can then basically allow for a zone for the DRC to flag the length mismatch where the design will still work, but is not ideal as a warning, and any larger values where the design would fail as an error. -Ian On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:25 PM Ian McInerney <ian.s.mciner...@ieee.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:13 PM Jeff Young <j...@rokeby.ie> wrote: >> > >> > Imagine that violating the micro-via min bumps me up a classification >> but violating the through-via min drops me out of pooling. There’s a big >> cost difference between those two. >> > >> > > This is why I think switching to the severities coming from the rules > would be a better way than defining them by the category of the violation. > By doing that we can limit the need for a lot of categories of violations. > We can for instance have a single code for "Minimum drill violated", and > then have two different rules for the minimum u-via drill and the minimum > through-via drill. Then those rules can treat the code "Minimum drill > violated" as either a warning or an error as they see fit. > > -Ian > >
_______________________________________________ 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
