[Ongoing] Testing Toponaming in upstream FreeCAD

Report observations made with the new Toponaming branch.
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Post Reply
User avatar
Kunda1
Veteran
Posts: 13434
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:03 pm

[Ongoing] Testing Toponaming in upstream FreeCAD

Post by Kunda1 »

@realthunder has begun porting his toponaming code to upstream master on a branch called 'development/toponaming'
So far he's sent the following PRs:
  1. issue #7427
  2. issue #7435
Currently the only ways to test is to either:
  • build the development/toponaming branch from source
  • use the dedicated toponaming experimental nightly snaps

    Code: Select all

    snap refresh freecad --channel='latest/edge/toponaming' # switch to dedicated nightly toponaming snap channel
    snap refresh freecad --channel='latest/edge'            # switch back to nightly development snap channel
    
Each PR has instructions on how to test (for examples what are the limitations of the code of said PR).
Alone you go faster. Together we go farther
Please mark thread [Solved]
Want to contribute back to FC? Checkout:
'good first issues' | Open TODOs and FIXMEs | How to Help FreeCAD | How to report Bugs
User avatar
mfro
Posts: 664
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:15 am

Re: [Ongoing] Testing Toponaming in upstream FreeCAD

Post by mfro »

Great!

I understand there is nothing to be tested specifically to toponaming yet, just generally if everything still works?

I get a compilation error (probably due to using OCC latest?) regarding include "Standard_TooManyUsers.hxx" ( :?: - strange naming) not found. Compiles fine when I just remove that line.
Cheers,
Markus
user1234
Veteran
Posts: 3345
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: [Ongoing] Testing Toponaming in upstream FreeCAD

Post by user1234 »

Hello!

@realthunder: how much compatible are the files with the master atm? Could it be, if the files are saved in the development/toponaming branch, they are not backwards compatible? Just asking.

Greetings
user1234
User avatar
mfro
Posts: 664
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:15 am

Re: [Ongoing] Testing Toponaming in upstream FreeCAD

Post by mfro »

user1234 wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:38 pm Hello!

@realthunder: how much compatible are the files with the master atm? Could it be, if the files are saved in the development/toponaming branch, they are not backwards compatible? Just asking.

Greetings
user1234
I didn't find any incompatibility so far - if you save a file with the new version and reopen it with a "pre-toponaming" one, everything looks good and works as expected.

If you then save with the "pre-toponaming" version and reopen with the new FreeCAD, you''ll see (if enabled) lots of console messages stating required recompute to regenerate the element map, but everything works as expected after that. So it appears there is no drawback except the required recompute.
Cheers,
Markus
user1234
Veteran
Posts: 3345
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: [Ongoing] Testing Toponaming in upstream FreeCAD

Post by user1234 »

mfro wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:48 pm I didn't find any incompatibility so far
Thanks for the good summary. So i will work with it in the future sometimes (with a save file).

Compiling works for me now flawless.


Greetings
user1234
User avatar
Kunda1
Veteran
Posts: 13434
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:03 pm

Re: [Ongoing] Testing Toponaming in upstream FreeCAD

Post by Kunda1 »

Remember to read each PR summary to understand where the state of the toponaming is (since RT hasn't merged all his patches yet)
Alone you go faster. Together we go farther
Please mark thread [Solved]
Want to contribute back to FC? Checkout:
'good first issues' | Open TODOs and FIXMEs | How to Help FreeCAD | How to report Bugs
User avatar
adrianinsaval
Veteran
Posts: 5541
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:15 pm

Re: [Ongoing] Testing Toponaming in upstream FreeCAD

Post by adrianinsaval »

should I ask to put this on flathub-beta?
user1234
Veteran
Posts: 3345
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: [Ongoing] Testing Toponaming in upstream FreeCAD

Post by user1234 »

Hello!

@uwestoehr: since you have merged the PRs, please allow me a question. How often will get the development/toponaming branch the commits from the master, i mean how often it will be harmonized? Because when it is too far ahead as the big PR#4752, harmonizing will be hard again.

Greetings
user1234
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53939
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: [Ongoing] Testing Toponaming in upstream FreeCAD

Post by chrisb »

mfro wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:48 pm I didn't find any incompatibility so far - if you save a file with the new version and reopen it with a "pre-toponaming" one, everything looks good and works as expected.
I wonder how this can be. If I attach something to a face, then it can behave differently in master and branch if I change a previous step, because a full recompute assignes the numbers to the faces more or less randomly. If the files are backwards compatible, does this mean that the random numbering isn't changed and only the mapping is different?
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
User avatar
mfro
Posts: 664
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:15 am

Re: [Ongoing] Testing Toponaming in upstream FreeCAD

Post by mfro »

chrisb wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 5:09 pm
mfro wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:48 pm I didn't find any incompatibility so far - if you save a file with the new version and reopen it with a "pre-toponaming" one, everything looks good and works as expected.
I wonder how this can be. If I attach something to a face, then it can behave differently in master and branch if I change a previous step, because a full recompute assignes the numbers to the faces more or less randomly. If the files are backwards compatible, does this mean that the random numbering isn't changed and only the mapping is different?
My understanding (although not completely sure) is that the current state (with two PRs committed) generates and saves the information required to recover from TNP, but doesn't use it (yet). So the results appear (although not tested in every detail) just as wrong (or "compatible") as before.
Cheers,
Markus
Post Reply