Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[bug] Bundles to have consistent part number fields #183

Open
Tracked by #251
Tyler-Ward opened this issue Oct 20, 2020 · 2 comments
Open
Tracked by #251

[bug] Bundles to have consistent part number fields #183

Tyler-Ward opened this issue Oct 20, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@Tyler-Ward
Copy link
Contributor

Splitting out of #115 (comment)

Curently in a bundle the part number fields will be rendered differently if they are a string or a list. If they are a string they are rendered at the top of a node and if a list they are rendered per wire, it mould make sense for this to be consistent across bundles by always doing the latter.

@kvid
Copy link
Collaborator

kvid commented Oct 20, 2020

AFAIK, this is by design. Attributes common to all wires are listed above all wires (except image, and notes below all wires), and attributes specified for each wire are listed above and below each wire. Currently, both options are implemented for pn, manufacturer, and mpn, but it has been discussed to support the same for gauge too.

@formatc1702
Copy link
Collaborator

AFAIK, this is by design.

Correct. Here's the history:

  • At the beginning, the only parameter that could change on a per-wire basis, was color. Everything else (type, length, gauge, ...) was global for the entire cable, thus displayed above the wires.
  • Currently, bundles implement separate [manufacturer] part number parameters.
  • In the future (see [feature] More control over wire parameters #56), more parameters might be editable on a per-wire basis.

That's why, IMHO, we shouldn't see this as a bug, nor worry about it too much, because I think some major refactoring may be in order to cleanly implement the transition for more granularity.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants