Could the Topological naming issue be monitored?

Have some feature requests, feedback, cool stuff to share, or want to know where FreeCAD is going? This is the place.
freedman
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:02 am
Location: Washington State, USA

Could the Topological naming issue be monitored?

Postby freedman » Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:01 pm

The Subject states my thought pattern. I've been in the computer industry forever and there is always some kind of work-around or at least a way to inch/mm forward. :) Thought I might start a thread and see what comes of it. Since no one is currently writing FreeCAD code I would base the progress on what could be done with a resident macro? Some of the folks here are so good with them.

I kind of understand how the links get broken like during an open file, during a change to a previous face. I also get it that once the error has occurred it's not one of those undo button things.

So, what is possible. I know that a macro could be written that logs the Physical Links and if they change it could prompt you. The macro could also log the Link list as it changes. It could prompt you to what occurred and ask you if you need to go to a backup file.

This might be enough to learn where the errors occur and when, with so many users a pattern might be easier to find.
Last edited by freedman on Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
chrisb
Posts: 11812
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Could the Topographical naming issue be monitored?

Postby chrisb » Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:00 am

Please change the subject from "Topographical" to "topological".
triplus
Posts: 7609
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: Could the Topological naming issue be monitored?

Postby triplus » Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:22 pm

freedman wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:01 pm
Since no one is currently writing FreeCAD code I would base the progress on what could be done with a resident macro? Some of the folks here are so good with them.
Actually some are already writing TopoNaming related code. As standalone and as a part of A2plus/Assembly3 efforts:

https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?t=27582
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?t=29207
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?t=25712
freedman
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:02 am
Location: Washington State, USA

Re: Could the Topological naming issue be monitored?

Postby freedman » Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:29 pm

I always liked A3, it looks great but I can't guarantee to get work done using a development tool. If it's settled down then maybe I could try it.
triplus
Posts: 7609
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: Could the Topological naming issue be monitored?

Postby triplus » Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:57 pm

Actually it would be good if more end users would test Assembly 3 in relation to TopoNaming solution it provides.

P.S. Before trying to upstream a solution like that, some general sense of what it does and what it doesn't do will need to be established anyway.
freedman
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:02 am
Location: Washington State, USA

Re: Could the Topological naming issue be monitored?

Postby freedman » Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:34 am

P.S. Before trying to upstream a solution like that, some general sense of what it does and what it doesn't do will need to be established anyway.
triplus, before I jump into A3 and try it again, is the direction to fully support Part Design (PD) Bodies and use all the PD structure. I always felt like A3 didn't really like PD because of PD issues, understandable if your trying to succeed and you see something holding you back. Last time I looked at A3 there was really cool arraying multiple assemblies, very good to see.

If realthunder can get a handle on the topological issue and I can work in A3 with my standard Part Design models, that would be fine. I think most users want some assurance they can recover in Part Design if things go bad in A3.

I think your right about broadcasting the current state of A3, I would like to see a status every month here in Open discussion. The feedback could also be helpful.
triplus
Posts: 7609
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: Could the Topological naming issue be monitored?

Postby triplus » Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:09 am

My suggestion went more in the direction, if you are experiencing TopoNaming issues in upstream FreeCAD, it would be great, if you would test the same use case with Assembly 3. And after to be vocal about the results. That would build some understanding, of just how capable current TopoNaming implementation in Assembly 3 is and what it can and can't do.

As for PartDesign future. PartDesign is a FreeCAD module used by most FreeCAD users in some way. Therefore PartDesign module needs to address different people needs and expectations. Be sure to mention your point of view, when developers ask for feedback, or when participating in a thread addressing some use case.