Way to implement Jumpers/Interconnects #350
Comments
|
So the wertical lines also work: Vertical dashed linesthey work by the following: the .gv file line definition
the gvpr post prossecingfor this one needs to create a "filter"/process file(do not know the thermology) with the following in it( this is some magic I do not understand but I think it removes all the cureved point in a line that has the attribute Generating the Outputthis is done by the folloing Comand:
RemarksAs mentioned I do not know how to Implement this in python but it works manualy at least. Result
the input gb file: |
|
I'm curious - when do you need to specify font face, point-size, and color? Is it for |
When I not specified the Font and point size the bloke circle was cut of at the bottom. |
|
The first (Pin 3) is |
|
Ok, the |
|
One problem that exist, is that the Text in a Table in SVGs is not completely centered. For more details read here: https://forum.graphviz.org/t/text-in-table-in-svg-output-not-completly-centered/2199 |
|
Updated the code of |
|
Very new user of WireViz, and I already love it. This is exactly one big thing I miss at the moment too, so +1 from me <3 The very ongoing documentation happens https://github.com/vaasahacklab/gatekeeper/tree/new_hardware_docs/docs and indeed all the current "jumpers" would be really jumpers, so this would be so spot on :) |
|
@olmari - Be aware that both #286 and #48 might be worth visiting. Please try the work-around I suggested in #286 (comment) that might help you while waiting for better solutions. |
|
@tobiasfalk - I'm grateful and impressed by your effort with this issue, and obtaining a great result in such a short time! I'm sorry that I have not yet had time to play with your solutions. I help maintaining this on my spare time (which in some periods is very limited), and have lately given priority to all the bugs after releasing v0.4. I didn't want to give you any critical comments in your creative process, because the work you have done here is highly valuable for this project - also beyond this issue. I guess #3, #120, #330, and maybe others can benefit from your work on post processing the dot output. However, now when you have a complete solution, I must mention a small concern I have about the dashed lines. During my work on #330, I realized dashed lines are used a lot for shielding in the relevant IEEE and IEC standards, and I wonder if a solid line would be better for your straight jumpers - maybe a bit thicker than the table border lines? I know it's simple to implement such a change, but can you first find references to how such jumpers are drawn in other diagrams, so we can compare this to any established practice? |
I understand, I will compile some examples with different line styles and post them here.
I have done this at the beginning but also just now I did a short search again, and did not find any reference to Jumpers/Interconnects/Shorting pins in the IEEE/IEC/ISO standards, but it could be that I am just not searching with the right terms. |
Dashed
Dashed Bold
Dotted
Dotted Bold
Solid
Solid Bold
|
|
Solid Bold seams quite good |
I agree, and it's also a good fit to #48 (comment), but I hope we also can get opinions from several others before deciding. We are not in hurry. |
|
Some details that have not been discussed in this issue yet are:
|
I think the "internal" emphasis that this short/connection is inside the Connector housing and not a wire loop that may go outside and than back in again.
I agree. |
|
@tobiasfalk wrote:
It makes sense, but such synonyms deserves a separate issue (there might be more synonym candidates, e.g. in #331). Are internal shorts always short wires inside the connector housing, or does it also exist connectors with optional shorts integrated? When the shorts need wires, they also should be counted in the BOM, but then we need more information than their colors. See also #288 (comment) where I suggest the same for
See also the latest update of my question with a follow-up that I wrote before my browser detected your answer. |
|
@kvid yes I think we should most likely decide for either loops or shorts, since they are practically the same. As for representation of options/description for a short, I would just add a row directly under the jumpers and in the colom of the jumper, text is added that describes the jumper. |
|
AFAIK sometimes there are literal loops for connectors that can't have literal jumpers, so as concepts they're different... Both have place and should exists as general thing..
Yep!
I'd "vote" for not populated, as "shortcut jumpers" are specific to.. hmm.. how to describe it best... kind of self-explanatory already here described as internal to connection blocks, so no wires are attached to them at any point alone... AFAIK even with my old job as building these things, shortcut blocks were never treated as "external" not "populated" in context of wiring connections... ADD/EDIT: (current way of) loop is populated, as it reserves an spot from connector wiring spot, internal jumper is not populated, as it does not cater to wiring itself, and no wire can change is there jumper block or not. |
|
The problem with shorts in the BOM is that it highly depends on the connector, one connector can only be shorted with a with short wires that goes directly from one pin to the next(maybe even blanknwires), like good old DB9 or DB25 connector(most of them at least). One way could be to provide it as a option for the Connector to say that part XY is as often needed as shorts. |
|
These are generally what I think of shorts in this context https://www.starelec.fi/product_info.php?products_id=32067, these yellow things... While there can be all sorts of things in random connector to make similar thing happen, the gist is that if it is "internal" like in my example, it should not count as populated, if it does occupy an place for wire to go, it should be populated... aka as loop does at the very moment... Rest is semantics and can be described already in wireviz "language"... EDIT: I mean sure if we can have sane method of describing BOM-wise an jumpshort connector, okay fine, but we already can aslo describe additional parts etc... So adding specific internal jumper block to BOM isn't exactly new issue |
|
Deciding whether shorts should count as |
|
@kvid mm... I see what you do say... All I can say for my "stance" is that what I linked in previous message is the thing... That thing does not happen on either side of where wires or (physical) connector mates into, it is specific within the connector or connector bloc, neither side of wiring nor possible mating is in consideration... |
|
...Again I'm not specifically against if user can describe the internal short any way possible, would always be more flexible that way, just describing the thoughtprocess of why we generally even consider separate things for "loops" and "shorts" and their core meaning... |
|
@olmari wrote:
Maybe the term mating side doesn't fit very well with your connection block, but I still believe the functionality I suggest will fit your use case as well:
Your connection block doesn't have a mating side, only a wire terminal side, so using the |
|
@kvid now with your explanation 'populated' makes even more sense for shorts, since they require a Pin in the connector and not a plug or something else. |
|
Mm... I don't have exact suggestion to exact terms to use. Nor I kind of even care in the ultimate picture. All I really care is the thought process of what I had for "short" or "jumper", and how it was described in this issue originally (or as I understood it in the premise of what I personally need). @kvid that explanation or difference of populated vs connected does make sense when you put it like that... :) |
|
My suggestion of |
|
This gives me the question, do we change things so that the user needs to rewrite its yaml file with a version updated? |
|
In the broad context in any and all types of connections / connectors, I tend to think that short / jumper is internal to any connector, whereas loop is.. well.. exactly what it is now... @tobiasfalk loop and short is not the same... or... loop is "always" wire connecting between two points in connector wire connections, whereas short/jumper is internal to connector in any sense of wiring... Sure there are N+1 types of connectors, but they all can have between 0 + infinity amount of both loops and shorts as concept. |
|
Did some work on #369 , where I changed the syntax to alowe more options for the shorts |
I do not think so, since this is an option that can be set by the user and is entirely optional. The standard behavior is how I proposed here and if the used sets it to 'type: loop' than the short is not drawn like it is here but the same way the loops are. |
in #286 I suggested a way to implement Jumpers/Interconnects, this is a summery/spinoff on the request of @kvid.
The Idea how it could look (very similar to #48 (comment)):
Black Circles ⬤
The Black circles can be implemented by adding the following to the table in the corresponding Pin/Way row:
(not very good, since the symbol can get "lost" in the process)
or
The later one(
⬤) is better sinze it cases less problems.Doing this will lead to the following:
Vertical dashed lines
This is more complicated and would require a change in how the output is generated, and I do not know how to implement this in Python.
The way I was told to do it(asked about it in the GrapghViz Forum ) would require the use of gvpr and neato, with are post processors for the dot output.
I is currently not working, but I am working on it.
Some examples of my current Output:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: