Old Workflow refactoring

Discussion about the development of the Assembly workbench.
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
ickby
Veteran
Posts: 3116
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:36 am

Old Workflow refactoring

Post by ickby »

Hello guys,

I just had a very superficial look at your commits (did not even compile and test) and I do have a few questions:

1. It seems like you guys allow to create new part design features outside of a body. Is this correct? Or does this just enable to open/edit existing old part design features?

2. Why did you remove the groove ui? It is of course currently possible to do so, however, in the future it is highly likely to diverge from revolution just like pad and pocket did (with different options like through all). Isn't this just making it more work in the future?

3.What is the exact purpose of datum features outside of the body?

In general I think oyu are going not only to allow editing old part design features but also to allow working in the old non-body and non-part workflow. If so I have to say this is not acceptable for me. The new Part Design must only allow the body workflow and enforce it.
Fat-Zer
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 10:38 pm

Re: Old Workflow refactoring

Post by Fat-Zer »

ickby wrote:If so I have to say this is not acceptable for me.
why?
User avatar
DeepSOIC
Veteran
Posts: 7896
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:45 am
Location: used to be Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Re: Old Workflow refactoring

Post by DeepSOIC »

ickby wrote:1. It seems like you guys allow to create new part design features outside of a body. Is this correct? Or does this just enable to open/edit existing old part design features?
Yes.
Doesn't the ability to edit existing files imply adding and removing features? (just tweaking some lengths isn't editing, I think very few situations fall into this case; if so, it wasn't even necessary to do anything, because the result could be achieved through property editor).
User avatar
DeepSOIC
Veteran
Posts: 7896
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:45 am
Location: used to be Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Re: Old Workflow refactoring

Post by DeepSOIC »

ickby wrote:3.What is the exact purpose of datum features outside of the body?
Is it enough to say that I need them for my projects?
The general purpose is the same as it is in PartDesign: attaching sketches, referencing them for axes, referencing them from Sketcher... I hope you don't say you are about to ditch Part workbench.
I think they are going to be very useful in Arch, too. EDIT: for example, the current interface for placing Section is quite horrible.
User avatar
DeepSOIC
Veteran
Posts: 7896
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:45 am
Location: used to be Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Re: Old Workflow refactoring

Post by DeepSOIC »

And by the way: datum features is the main reason why I am working on this branch now.
User avatar
DeepSOIC
Veteran
Posts: 7896
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:45 am
Location: used to be Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Re: Old Workflow refactoring

Post by DeepSOIC »

ickby wrote:The new Part Design must only allow the body workflow and enforce it.
Well, what are the benefits of working with bodies?
a) clear distinction of what feature belongs to what solid, nice layout in tree view
b) fork prevention
c) feature insertion and reordering
d) support for future assembly
e) more?

Drawbacks, those I'm aware of:
a) dependency graph in its current form quickly becomes unreadable. It can be solved.
b) PartDesign is impossible on top of an existing model (or is it?). It can be solved.

I think if we clearly present the advantages to users, they will stick to bodies without any enforcement from FreeCAD. This can be made as a don't-show-again pop-up when trying to place a new sketch, for example.
User avatar
DeepSOIC
Veteran
Posts: 7896
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:45 am
Location: used to be Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Re: Old Workflow refactoring

Post by DeepSOIC »

Please excuse me for posting so much :P Answering another question.
ickby wrote:2. Why did you remove the groove ui? It is of course currently possible to do so, however, in the future it is highly likely to diverge from revolution just like pad and pocket did (with different options like through all). Isn't this just making it more work in the future?
Can you name any extra feature that makes sense for Groove, but doesn't for revolution? I can't, so far. Otherwise, the reason should be obvious: reduce the amount of duplicate code, to make fixing bugs easier.
jmaustpc
Veteran
Posts: 11207
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:28 am
Location: Australia

Re: Old Workflow refactoring

Post by jmaustpc »

Hi all
DeepSOIC wrote:Please excuse me for posting so much :P Answering another question.
ickby wrote:2. Why did you remove the groove ui? It is of course currently possible to do so, however, in the future it is highly likely to diverge from revolution just like pad and pocket did (with different options like through all). Isn't this just making it more work in the future?
Can you name any extra feature that makes sense for Groove, but doesn't for revolution? I can't, so far. Otherwise, the reason should be obvious: reduce the amount of duplicate code, to make fixing bugs easier.
what about
ickby wrote: just like pad and pocket did (with different options like through all).
:)
DeepSOIC wrote:I think if we clearly present the advantages to users, they will stick to bodies without any enforcement from FreeCAD.
I doubt that.. :D ...how many times have we had to tell people to post their version data? How many newbies don't read the "Read before asking for help" topic at the top of the forum? Ever done any I.T. support? if you had you would know that the commonest fault is that a device is unplugged or turned off and despite asking clients to check this, still many of my call outs were over such stupid things as unplugged power cables, power points not turned on etc. never underestimate how stupid the most intelligent people can be when you put a computer in front of them :D

Jim
User avatar
DeepSOIC
Veteran
Posts: 7896
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:45 am
Location: used to be Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Re: Old Workflow refactoring

Post by DeepSOIC »

jmaustpc wrote:ickby wrote: just like pad and pocket did (with different options like through all).
This is what I ask for: a particular feature that will only make sense for Groove, and not Revolution. "Through all" doesn't make any sense for Groove (if you think otherwise, please tell me what is it supposed to do).
User avatar
DeepSOIC
Veteran
Posts: 7896
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:45 am
Location: used to be Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Re: Old Workflow refactoring

Post by DeepSOIC »

jmaustpc wrote:
DeepSOIC wrote:I think if we clearly present the advantages to users, they will stick to bodies without any enforcement from FreeCAD.
I doubt that.. :D ...how many times have we had to tell people to post their version data? How many newbies don't read the "Read before asking for help" topic at the top of the forum? Ever done any I.T. support? if you had you would know that the commonest fault is that a device is unplugged or turned off and despite asking clients to check this, still many of my call outs were over such stupid things as unplugged power cables, power points not turned on etc. never underestimate how stupid the most intelligent people can be when you put a computer in front of them :D
OK.

But the main reason I did that (allow old workflow) is to support old designs, and thus to make this branch ready to be merged. All this is merely GUI stuff, which can be changed easily. The App part is the harder place. Changing it requires migration, otherwise old designs will be broken. But app level compatibility is basically done, before this "bring old workflow back alive" effort even began.

Suggestions? Drop it and tidy up the migration?
One thing I really want to be taken care of is the ability to make small changes to existing designs. I can imagine the amout of frustration, where I would have to go through the migration, probably a painful process, to merely add a small pocket to a piece.

Ah, well, don't listen to me, I'm just a guy having some fun with a 3d printer :P . I think I've already put too much IMHO here.
Post Reply