2018-03-21 20:16 GMT+02:00 Wayne Stambaugh <stambau...@gmail.com>: > Sounds reasonable. If I'm reading the comments correctly, I don't like > the idea that the current proposed patch leaves footprints in a state > where they cannot be selected and edited. I'm sure that will quickly > produce another but report. > > Now I have to say again that the fix doesn't actually cause that situation. It happens already. If there is a footprint with only pads with e.g. paste layer only and then the paste layer is removed from the board, the footprint can't be selected. It happens already without the patch. Apparently my bug report was the first one and the patch wouldn't trigger more problems. Of course I understand that footprints should be always selectable, and the fact they are not is a bug on its own.
BTW, also the situation when such a footprint is added to a board which lacks the necessary layer should be handled. It also leads to a non-selectable footprint. But now, let's be realistic. What are the odds that people have footprints which don't have copper pads but have paste-only pads or mask-only pads and then they remove that layer, leaving the footprint non-selectable? After all, this happens *only* when a pad has only paste or mask and no copper *and* the footprint doesn't have any pads with other layers. I have seen enough to have learned to never say "why would anybody ever do that", but it seems very unlikely, and removing a copper layer which already has pads seems also very unlikely (well... it seems to be impossible to do it from the UI). Another thing to remember is that my original report was about having data lost by accident because there was no warning. If users are warned about consequences when they do something they do it at their own risk, right? I won't run into the same situation again even if the bug remains unfixed, so I don't have an axe to grind, but it would feel weird if it wouldn't be fixed now, considering that even the patch wouldn't lead to any *new* problems and that the original problem would have been prevented by only adding necessary checks to the code and a warning to the dialog. Eeli Kaikkonen
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp