Old Workflow refactoring
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Old Workflow refactoring
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.
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.
Re: Old Workflow refactoring
why?ickby wrote:If so I have to say this is not acceptable for me.
- DeepSOIC
- Veteran
- Posts: 7896
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:45 am
- Location: used to be Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Re: Old Workflow refactoring
Yes.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?
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).
- DeepSOIC
- Veteran
- Posts: 7896
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:45 am
- Location: used to be Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Re: Old Workflow refactoring
Is it enough to say that I need them for my projects?ickby wrote:3.What is the exact purpose of datum features outside of the body?
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.
- DeepSOIC
- Veteran
- Posts: 7896
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:45 am
- Location: used to be Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Re: Old Workflow refactoring
And by the way: datum features is the main reason why I am working on this branch now.
- DeepSOIC
- Veteran
- Posts: 7896
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:45 am
- Location: used to be Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Re: Old Workflow refactoring
Well, what are the benefits of working with bodies?ickby wrote:The new Part Design must only allow the body workflow and enforce it.
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.
- DeepSOIC
- Veteran
- Posts: 7896
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:45 am
- Location: used to be Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Re: Old Workflow refactoring
Please excuse me for posting so much Answering another question.
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.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?
Re: Old Workflow refactoring
Hi all
Jim
what aboutDeepSOIC wrote:Please excuse me for posting so much Answering another question.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.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?
ickby wrote: just like pad and pocket did (with different options like through all).
I doubt that.. ...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 themDeepSOIC wrote:I think if we clearly present the advantages to users, they will stick to bodies without any enforcement from FreeCAD.
Jim
- DeepSOIC
- Veteran
- Posts: 7896
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:45 am
- Location: used to be Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Re: Old Workflow refactoring
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).jmaustpc wrote:ickby wrote: just like pad and pocket did (with different options like through all).
- DeepSOIC
- Veteran
- Posts: 7896
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:45 am
- Location: used to be Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Re: Old Workflow refactoring
OK.jmaustpc wrote:I doubt that.. ...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 themDeepSOIC wrote:I think if we clearly present the advantages to users, they will stick to bodies without any enforcement from FreeCAD.
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 . I think I've already put too much IMHO here.