Footprint text properties - width "must" be larger than 0.127

[Art]

I was trying to edit one of my footprints. An attempt to edit one of the text fields (footprint name) resulted in the warning (which is not really a warning, because it doesn't let you to proceed any further) "Width must me larger than 0.127mm. I keep running into these contrived limitations in KiCad that absolutely drive me nuts! I've been using all my footprints with 0.1 mm text line width for all of my smaller components in the footprint name for years!

Here is my reasoning why this limit is retarded:

1. Footprint names are never really printed on the board, they are for your own reference and usually left "invisible". So manufacturing of the board doesn't affect it in any way. So you either need to discriminate between text boxes on silk screen and footprint name, or stop micromanaging and let people do what they want. Make it a true warning, which means you should be able to ignore it if you choose so.

2. Smaller components with a long component name need to have this field as small as possible. Limiting line width limits how small you can make it.

3. Stop telling me what to do!

Implementation of the error message is pretty lame too. It traps you until you actually enter something smaller than 0.127mm in the text box. It doesn't let you to escape or to cancel from the dialog until you enter a number that is >= than 0.127

Application: kicad
Version: (6.0.0-rc1-dev-484-g9b50b9406), release build
Libraries:
    wxWidgets 3.0.3
    libcurl/7.54.1 OpenSSL/1.0.2l zlib/1.2.11 libssh2/1.8.0 nghttp2/1.23.1 librtmp/2.3
Platform: Windows 8 (build 9200), 64-bit edition, 64 bit, Little endian, wxMSW
Build Info:
    wxWidgets: 3.0.3 (wchar_t,wx containers,compatible with 2.8)
    Boost: 1.60.0
    OpenCASCADE Community Edition: 6.8.0
    Curl: 7.54.1
    Compiler: GCC 7.1.0 with C++ ABI 1011

Build settings:
    USE_WX_GRAPHICS_CONTEXT=OFF
    USE_WX_OVERLAY=OFF
    KICAD_SCRIPTING=ON
    KICAD_SCRIPTING_MODULES=ON
    KICAD_SCRIPTING_WXPYTHON=ON
    KICAD_SCRIPTING_ACTION_MENU=ON
    BUILD_GITHUB_PLUGIN=ON
    KICAD_USE_OCE=ON
    KICAD_USE_OCC=OFF
    KICAD_SPICE=ON

[Seth Hillbrand (sethh)]

Hi Art-

Thank you for your report. In the future, it would be appreciated if you would refrain from insults and slurs. They do not help the report and they make our community smaller and less welcoming.

[Art (diametrix)]

One more thought. Even for the text fields that are designed for printing on the board I would prefer not to strictly enforce this rule. For example, all my chip SMD footprints (resistors, caps etc.)have reference fields0.3mmx0.3mm with line width of 0.05. I know it is not going to print legibly on the board (although with better silk printers you can still distinguish the number). In a busy design there is just no space to use bigger reference fields. I use them mainly for printing out board layouts and while working on the design and don't care that much about seeing them on the actual board.

[Jeff Young (jeyjey)]

I'm not sure I understand (1) and (2). If they're not visible, then what difference does it make what size they are?

Not that it matters, because I fully understand (3). ;)

[KiCad Janitor (kicad-janitor)]

Fixed in revision 86b654e493dae7b595a1b4645a0351effa9bc46a
https://git.launchpad.net/kicad/patch/?id=86b654e493dae7b595a1b4645a0351effa9bc46a

[Wayne Stambaugh (stambaughw)]

@Jeff, you should probably fix the nanny limits in the 5.0 branch but I noticed you mixed a other fixes in this commit so it may not be straight forward.

[Jeff Young (jeyjey)]

Yeah, the mixing was accidental. Doing too many things at once. ;)

The nanny stuff is short enough to easily re-create in 5.0.

[KiCad Janitor (kicad-janitor)]

Fixed in revision 1f19903e7e259e8f57d5b410b8712fb01aa78c24
https://git.launchpad.net/kicad/patch/?id=1f19903e7e259e8f57d5b410b8712fb01aa78c24

[Art (diametrix)]

Thanks for fixing it!

@Jeff
Just an FYI. I put invisible in quotation marks for a reason. Although you designate a field to be invisible it is still visible on the screen in a greyed-out state. In a busy design all the footprint reference fields which don't fit inside of the footprint just make things confusing. You can make it truly invisible by disabling the corresponding layer, but that's not a good solution since you would make reference fields invisible as well. Another reason when it would become a problem would be when you build or troubleshoot the board and print out the board with reference designators and sometimes footprint names. Again, if you don't have control over the size of those fields - it is going to get messy.

@Seth
I re-read this post and couldn't find any insults directed at a single person. If your sensibilities were injured by me calling the limit names, I offer my sincere apologies to the limit.

[Seth Hillbrand (sethh)]

@Art-

My point was that bug reports should focus on the issue. Referring to our work as "retarded" or "lame" doesn't help us understand and fix the issue. And it limits the community of people who interact with these bug reports to those who are up for wading through the invective. Whether that is me, other devs or those who haven't yet contributed, we've a larger, better community when we avoid insults and focus on the software.

In case you are curious about how this kind of language affects others here are a couple of links:

https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/lets-disable-the-word-lame
https://www.r-word.org/r-word-effects-of-the-word.aspx

[Art (diametrix)]

@Seth

I think you can take everything to the extreme and start outlawing the words just because it offends somebody. I can't really keep up with the snowflakes outlawing words that offend them. ..can you say snowflakes anymore?

That being said, you referred to my work (i.e. this bug report) as "slur", "insults" and "invective" (that one cut really deep). I would like to urge you to refrain from such strong and insulting language. It limits the community of people reporting bugs to those who are not scared to wade through overly sensitive developer's reactions. I find those derogatory terms deeply offensive and demand that those nouns be banned from the English language!