[tracker] bugs in the toponaming branch

[realthunder]

It was suggested to mention this Part TNP discussion: https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic. ... 91#p636291

PR submitted here

[JulianStirling]

Hi all,

Not sure if this should be in this thread or the one about the algorithm. I decided to create and test a contrived example to see how the toponaming AppImage would handle certain changes.

I made this sketch

Screenshot_20221117_163716.png (20.11 KiB) Viewed 2430 times

I padded it, selected the face opposite the apex made a sketch on this face and created a hole. Making this little shape:

Screenshot_20221117_163634.png (17.4 KiB) Viewed 2430 times

I then went back to my original sketch. Made toggled the construction on one line and added a couple more.

Screenshot_20221117_163755.png (19.22 KiB) Viewed 2430 times

After this my hole second sketch and hole jump to a new face.

Screenshot_20221117_163850.png (6.6 KiB) Viewed 2430 times

I am not sure if this is a bug in toponaming algorithm/branch, or me just misunderstanding what the toponaming branch is meant to do.

[adrianinsaval]

I am not sure if this is a bug in toponaming algorithm/branch, or me just misunderstanding what the toponaming branch is meant to do.

the latter, this beta does not include the toponaming functionality in Part Design, only Sketcher and Part WB. Toponamig problems when referencing PD generated geometry are expected.

There are too many threads about the toponaming stuff and it's honestly confusing, I tried the other day to find this thread because I wanted to mention issue #7657 which is IMO relevant (would you look at it and comment @realthunder?) and couldn't find this.

Please @uwestoehr centralize the toponaming stuff in one place, it's hard to follow:
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=71687
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=73017
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=72886
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?p=218608

which is the actual relevant thread? please lock the others and redirect in them to the preferred thread instead (and make it pinned somewhere)

In light of the recent contribution policy changes it might be a good idea to open an issue on github about toponaming and discuss there these things.

[chrisb]

which is the actual relevant thread? please lock the others and redirect in them to the preferred thread instead (and make it pinned somewhere)

I propose to do this all in the Toponaming forum.

[JulianStirling]

the latter, this beta does not include the toponaming functionality in Part Design, only Sketcher and Part WB. Toponamig problems when referencing PD generated geometry are expected.

Ah, right. Sorry for the noise!

[jerome992]

Hello,

It is not possible to select a edge inside the Sketcher Workbench, if the sketch is a member of a body, which is a member of a Part:
Selection.cpp(1691): Sub-object Unnamed#Part.Body.Sketch.Body.Sketch.;g1.edge1 not found

To reproduce the bug:
Create a new part,
Create a new body,
Create a sketch,
Create a rectangle,
Close the sketch,
Reopen the sketch,
Select an edge.

Sincerely,
Jerome

screenshot1.png (70.74 KiB) Viewed 2096 times

screenshot2.png (102.52 KiB) Viewed 2096 times

[uwestoehr]

It is not possible to select a edge inside the Sketcher Workbench, if the sketch is a member of a body, which is a member of a Part:
Selection.cpp(1691): Sub-object Unnamed#Part.Body.Sketch.Body.Sketch.;g1.edge1 not found ...

@realthunder , can you reproduce this?

[realthunder]

This is supposed to be fixed by PR#8124.

[uwestoehr]

This is supposed to be fixed by PR#8124.

Ah, I see now.

This change made me feel that the toponaming code is understandable by other, which is very good.
@jerome992 , we just had a technical discussion about the toponaming changes. You as a new user, I would like to have you feedback:
- was it easy for you to understand the code? What could be done in the code to make it better understandable? (Where should be more comments etc.?)
- do you have proposals to improve the resulting XML output? Meaning, in case you had a look at the XML results, where would you maybe have more info in the XML file?