How is it possible to link two pins together without a wire, e.g. with a net label? Donfing it with a netlabel gives “Duplicate net name error”
Use the move net segement to other net tool. This should really go into some sort of FAQ as many people are having that issue.
Maybe this could also be a UI-fix? If we already display a warning, eventually asking whether the user wants to abort or merge is the “predictable” thing to do? I am not a huge fan of that kind of popups, but in this case it might make sense.
I’ve thought about an unintrusive (i.e. non modal) notification as well, but this might mislead users. Coming from other tools, users might expect renaming a net label would only move pins on the net segment with the label to the other net, whereas a net merge notification would then merge both nets.
While we could overload the enter datum/double click action to change connectivity, that’s not feasible with the net name in property editor on the right side, as that one only knows about the net and not about the label or such.
Part of the reason for the user having to be explicit about connectivity changes is having worked on large project with schematic entry tools that connect net segments by virtue of having the same label. With that approach typos can easily lead to unintended connectivity.
I understand the concern for unintended connectivity, but it’s really quite desirable when re-using designs. It’s more error-prone to paste in a design fragment and then go through and reconnect all the nets. Can you imagine allowing a specific mode where nets do connect by name?
Along these lines, when nets are abandoned (like when you delete the part a net is connected to) it would be really nice if the nets stayed named so that you could easily replace a connector.
Before creating a new net, the paste tool first checks if there’s a net that matches by name before creating a new net of the original name.
That’s not how it works: Nets, as everything else are referred to by their UUID. The Name is just there for the user’s convenience. What would work though could be a tool “Merge nets by name” that merges identically-named nets.
Thanks for bringing this up. This has been bothering me a little as well, it’s now fixed on master.
1 Like