Serious RANT !!!! Arrrgh

[keithsloan52]

I have just been trying to give somebody advice on use of the OpenSCAD workbench.
In doing so I did some screen caputures on my system.

Code: Select all

OS: macOS 10.15
Word size of OS: 64-bit
Word size of FreeCAD: 64-bit
Version: 0.19.22164 (Git)
Build type: Release
Branch: master
Hash: f2a9f712e8d68ee2393d0fe748c02096c4148a32
Python version: 3.8.5
Qt version: 5.12.5
Coin version: 4.0.0
OCC version: 7.4.0
Locale: C/Default (C)

And found this

OpenSCAD Options.png (357.14 KiB) Viewed 1483 times

ONCE AGAIN arrrgh the Maximum Number of faces for polygons is set to 0 ( zero )

Where as it should be set to a more sensible default of 8,12 or 16.

I AM TOTALLY FEED UP WITH HAVING TO FIX THIS OVER and OVER again, Will somebody else please please fix and STOP whoever
changes back to zero as I refuse to fix this again !!!!!

[mikeprice99]

Ive not played with OpenSCAD, but I don't understand your problem. The value of 0 signifies NO LIMIT (as given in the hint).
I would have thought that no limit is the best default.

May be it would be good to make that more obvious by having the prompt as
Maximum number of faces for polygons (fn). Set to 0 for no limit

[keithsloan52]

Ive not played with OpenSCAD, but I don't understand your problem. The value of 0 signifies NO LIMIT (as given in the hint).
I would have thought that no limit is the best default.

May be it would be good to make that more obvious by having the prompt as
Maximum number of faces for polygons (fn). Set to 0 for no limit

Because 0 is NOT a SENSIBLE LIMIT !!!!

If is zero then ALL polygons stay as polygons !!! which is NOT AT ALL USEFUL !!!!!

A more sensible option is something like 8, 12, 16 so that Any polygon with more that this gets converted to a Circle or in the case of cylinders, cylinders rather than n shaped polygon type cylinders.

Having zero means that some people don't realise the ability to change to circle etc exists, so some even go and write web articles about hand editing the CSG files to get better imports.

[openBrain]

I don't understand what you say to have fixed. 0 is the default value for more than 5 years at least.

[wmayer]

This is the history of the .ui file: https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/comm ... sources/ui
It has been created in 2012 and the default of 0 has never been changed.

[vocx]

...Will somebody else please please fix and STOP whoever
changes back to zero as I refuse to fix this again !!!!!

The problem is you have no idea what you are doing.

I remember this issue in this thread: How do I get parameters to match. I even prepared a commit to fix this issue for you, but since it seemed you wanted to do it yourself, I never opened a pull request for it. You have to modify the .ui file, and the code inside the OpenSCAD Workbench with a new default.

The issue is that you have created a second OpenSCAD Workbench in the new "namespace style", however, since then it seems that you are mixing both, making changes to your own workbench, instead of the official workbench that is in the main repository. If you keep getting confused about it you won't get what you want.

KeithSloan/OpenSCAD

All these pull requests contain errors which were corrected later, git commit 5c24b236f0:
https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/3638
https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/3563
https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/3562

The OpenSCAD Workbench code needs some serious attention because it seems it hasn't been maintained by anybody but Keith in the last few years.

OpenSCAD Module questions.

[Kunda1]

The OpenSCAD Workbench code needs some serious attention because it seems it hasn't been maintained by anybody but Keith in the last few years.

Keith is really trying, It's very simple to see for example search through a lot of Keith's posts and you'll see a multitude of technical questions (some are GRBL related but there are OpenSCAD related ones as well). The fact is that OpenSCAD interoperability would be a big boon for FreeCAD and for FOSS in general. Where 2 projects create a strong and mature bridge to each other benefits both of them (that is if they maintain it and grow together). How do we grow this bond again? (would be a good question, IMO)

[keithsloan52]

...Will somebody else please please fix and STOP whoever
changes back to zero as I refuse to fix this again !!!!!

The problem is you have no idea what you are doing.

I remember this issue in this thread: How do I get parameters to match. I even prepared a commit to fix this issue for you, but since it seemed you wanted to do it yourself, I never opened a pull request for it. You have to modify the .ui file, and the code inside the OpenSCAD Workbench with a new default.

The issue is that you have created a second OpenSCAD Workbench in the new "namespace style", however, since then it seems that you are mixing both, making changes to your own workbench, instead of the official workbench that is in the main repository. If you keep getting confused about it you won't get what you want.

KeithSloan/OpenSCAD

All these pull requests contain errors which were corrected later, git commit 5c24b236f0:
https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/3638
https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/3563
https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/3562

The OpenSCAD Workbench code needs some serious attention because it seems it hasn't been maintained by anybody but Keith in the last few years.

OpenSCAD Module questions.

There is a second OpenSCAD workbenchKeithSloan/OpenSCAD
There was talk of making OpenSCAD a separate workbench, BUT IT IS NOT ADDED To Add-on Manager. I do not mix the two, it is separate.

If the git commit 5c24b236f0: corrected the errors WHY is the value 0? Given it is 0 it is NOT fixed.

You have to modify the .ui file, and the code inside the OpenSCAD Workbench with a new default.

The original code used the ui and was written by Sebastian Hoogen and the code matched. Somebody changed it

[openBrain]

There is a second OpenSCAD workbenchKeithSloan/OpenSCAD
There was talk of making OpenSCAD a separate workbench, BUT IT IS NOT ADDED To Add-on Manager. I do not mix the two, it is separate.

If the git commit 5c24b236f0: corrected the errors WHY is the value 0? Given it is 0 it is NOT fixed.

You should stop shouting and try to explain clearly the why.
No one of your PRs (at least in the ones mentioned by @vocx) change the deflection value. And nobody never changed it.
The commit 5c24b236f0 fixes errors that were in your PRs, but not the deflection value (again).
If community can agree that 0 isn't a good default value, that's a matter of 5 min to change this in the code.

[chrisb]

Keith's argument makes sense to set it to a value different from 0. I have no idea which other value may be sensible.