search

KiCad / kicad-library-utils

Some scripts for helping with library development
GNU General Public License v3.0
128 stars 92 forks source link

Better wording for missing 3d model settings #287

Closed poeschlr closed 5 years ago

poeschlr commented 5 years ago

I noticed many users think they must provide a 3d model. The sparse wording of the travis error message might be partly to blame for that.

I think this change will make it more clear to users what we really want from a footprint.

evanshultz commented 5 years ago

Makes sense. Rather than the word "settings" what about "reference"?

poeschlr commented 5 years ago

I am not sure if reference would be the right word. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reference

Maybe "link"? Or "path"?

diegoherranz commented 5 years ago

+1 for "path" I don't find "settings" very clear.

poeschlr commented 5 years ago

Updated wording

evanshultz commented 5 years ago

I think the first description in the link you included above is perfect. This section of the footprint is mentioning (referring to, hence "reference") the 3D model.

Path, in my mind, is the journey but not the destination. In this context, I see "path" as the series of folders but not the file (the 3D model here). So "path" doesn't sound right to me either.

No other suitable words are coming to me. Any other suggestions? Or maybe my suggestion was bad?

poeschlr commented 5 years ago

On file systems the path is normally the full thing including the file name. Example the python path module provides many functions that indicate that the path includes the filename: http://www.tutorialspoint.com/python/os_path_methods.htm

Edit: to make this even more clear i could change it to file-path

poeschlr commented 5 years ago

I changed it to use "file path" now which should make it really clear what is meant.

evanshultz commented 5 years ago

I see now why you may have went with "settings" at first: the UI uses that term. It doesn't sound too awkward in Pcbnew, though there's probably a better word. Just a note to let you know that I now better understand where you were coming from.

The wording is cumbersome to me. Lots of words but still not super clear. I'll hold off a bit from making any suggestions, unless asked, to see if there is feedback from anybody else.

Also note that 5.1 is intended to have multiple models for one footprint, so perhaps we don't need that case?

poeschlr commented 5 years ago

I know the wording is not perfect, but it is better as it was in the past. Unless someone can come up with a better wording then this might be best merged.

Regarding multiple 3d models: I would not really use multiple models at this point in time for the official lib. The vast majority (if not all) footprints are best served by a single model. So the check is still a valid sanity check. (Multiple models where always supported. The new thing added is that one can control which one is visible.) It is a warning anyways so i think it really should stay in.

Shackmeister commented 5 years ago

The multiple model is a pretty big misunderstanding. It's only the preview you can disable. It will still be visible in the board. It's only meant to be able to align multiple 3d models on the same footprint

evanshultz commented 5 years ago

OK. Will merge.

I was going off of Nick's comments in a Launchpad bug about multiple models and hadn't tried it myself. Thanks for clearing things up, Frank.