View Issue Details
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0001482||FreeCAD||Feature||public||2014-03-18 17:21||2015-01-24 15:49|
|Target Version||Fixed in Version||0.15|
|Summary||0001482: v0.14 Mirrored objects parent the original object|
|Description||All the FreeCAD nesting that I work with hides the parts in the lower tree. Mirroring is the only one that I'm aware of that's different where you typically wouldn't want to hide the child object. v0.13 created mirrored objects as root objects and in my opinion is the correct way to do it.|
Forum Thread on the topic http://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6077
|Steps To Reproduce||Let's say I have a front and rear bumper that are the same so I mirror the front to the rear. Next I want to group the rear bumper with other rear end parts. Now when you look at the tree, it looks like both the front and rear end bumpers are a part of the rear end parts, but the front end part isn't actually part of the group.|
|Tags||No tags attached.|
OS: Mac OS X
Version: 0.14.2408 (Git)
Python version: 2.7.5
Qt version: 4.8.5
Coin version: 3.1.3
SoQt version: 1.5.0
OCC version: 6.6.0
How about adding a property for the View provider to disable claiming the children per object.
In this case for a mirror feature it would be set to disabled when the mirror is created form the GUI.
So when i create a mirror from python I can re-enable claiming the child. Like when importing an OpenSCAD CSG file. In this case the child will be hidden an is considered construction geometry.
Mabe some features need even more than one property for this. To me it seems totally arbitrary that a sweep claims the sections but not the spline.
> How about adding a property for the View provider to disable claiming the children per object.
This doesn't solve anything. When having a property then one has to decide for a default value and then the same issue comes up: the ones want it nested, the others not. And then?
So, we have to leave this behaviour fixed and decide for the one or the other way. The best would be to check how other cad applications handle this.
> To me it seems totally arbitrary that a sweep claims the sections but not the spline.
The sections are shapes of a certain type: wire, vertex, edge
The spine is a compound of adjacent edges (sub-elements) of any object and thus the input objects shouldn't be children of the sweep. A proper solution might be to create an explicit trajectory object from the edges and then add this as a child.
If the child is visible in the document it is a matter of personal preference to have it claimed or not by the parent.
But if the child is hidden, it would make sense to have it claimed to make it obvious that it is still referenced.
Otherwise, i would have to consult the dependency graph every time.
||The object is again a children of the mirror object.|
|2014-03-18 17:21||getSurreal||New Issue|
|2014-03-18 17:31||getSurreal||Note Added: 0004475|
|2015-01-12 23:29||wmayer||Changeset attached||=> FreeCAD Master master 52899673|
|2015-01-12 23:29||wmayer||Assigned To||=> wmayer|
|2015-01-12 23:29||wmayer||Status||new => closed|
|2015-01-12 23:29||wmayer||Resolution||open => fixed|
|2015-01-13 11:51||shoogen||Note Added: 0005647|
|2015-01-13 11:51||shoogen||Status||closed => feedback|
|2015-01-13 11:51||shoogen||Resolution||fixed => reopened|
|2015-01-13 11:55||shoogen||Note Edited: 0005647||View Revisions|
|2015-01-13 12:03||shoogen||Note Edited: 0005647||View Revisions|
|2015-01-23 21:06||wmayer||Note Added: 0005691|
|2015-01-24 10:16||shoogen||Note Added: 0005695|
|2015-01-24 15:34||wmayer||Note Added: 0005710|
|2015-01-24 15:34||wmayer||Status||feedback => closed|
|2015-01-24 15:34||wmayer||Resolution||reopened => fixed|
|2015-01-24 15:34||wmayer||Fixed in Version||=> 0.15|
|2015-01-24 15:49||wmayer||Changeset attached||=> FreeCAD Master master be387726|