Add support for "Do Not Populate"

[Shackmeister]

In Version 7, there is now a field to indiate a component is "Do Not Populate".
It would be great if this plugin would use this to leave it out of the BOM or perhaps add it but with DNP as value but remove LCSC.

[bennymeg]

Sounds good,
Do you know by any chance where is the DNP variable is located in the API?

[Shackmeister]

I asked one of the lead devs in a private chat and got the following answer: "It is in the attributes structure. If it is set, the attribute 'DNP' will exist"

[bennymeg]

It seems that KiCad 7 uses both exclude from BOM and DNP:

I am not sure that is the right way to go now.
Maybe it's a good idea to open to discussion with the community if DNP also means exclude from BOM.

[Shackmeister]

"Exclude from BOM" is the replacement of "Virtual Attribute"
Hence meant for logos, mounting holes, fiducials etc. Also typically set in the symbol, and not per case basis.

[Shackmeister]

https://gitlab.com/kicad/code/kicad/-/issues/8908

[bennymeg]

It seems that the DNP attribute is only accessible from eeschema.
I do not see any reference for it in the pcbnew API.
Can you ask at the thread you opened in the KiCad forum if that is possible? I can find it.

[Shackmeister]

I'll see if I can get someone more knowledgeable than me to chime in.

[zapta]

Those Kicad masking flags are still complicated but it seems that Kicad 7.0.1 added a specific flag to exclude from the position file. Does this JLC plugin support it? I need to upgrade 7.0.0 to 7.0.1 to try it.

https://gitlab.com/kicad/code/kicad/-/issues/14332#note_1317963024

[bennymeg]

I don't think its new, only the check box was added, it should work.
I wish they would propagate the DNP flag as well.

[bennymeg]

After some investigation, it seems that checking the DNP flag will set exclude from position file automatically.
Which means that this feature is supported.

[Shackmeister]

Will it still be added to the BOM file?

[bennymeg]

Yes

[Shackmeister]

Isn't that just creating an error with JLC? 🤔
When component's are in the BOM but not in the CPL file

[zapta]

Kicad needs to clean up those flags IMO. Too much room for human errors.

…

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 7:28 AM Frank Severinsen ***@***.***> wrote: Isn't that just creating an error with JLC? 🤔 When component's are in the BOM but not in the CPL file — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#37 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAQVMQNLY3UDEV2TBVOZYXDW5RMZDANCNFSM6AAAAAAVCLFFNI> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[bennymeg]

Isn't that just creating an error with JLC? 🤔
When component's are in the BOM but not in the CPL file

It might, but that is how KiCad design to work right now (I have read couple of post about it), I will let them decide how to address it.

[Shackmeister]

Added an issue for exposing DNP support in Python
Feel free to fill in any blanks
https://gitlab.com/kicad/code/kicad/-/issues/14406

[zapta]

it seems that the DNP is available in the PCB api. BTW, it would be nice if marking a device as DNP in the schematic (and having a large X on top of it), will automatically exclude it from the BOM and position file. This will avoid inconsistency between the schema view and what is actually sent to production. I think that this plugin can implement this logic.

…

On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 5:43 AM Frank Severinsen ***@***.***> wrote: Added an issue for exposing DNP support in Python Feel free to fill in any blanks https://gitlab.com/kicad/code/kicad/-/issues/14406 — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#37 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAQVMQNFSRN4LG5COS6SI2DW5WJHLANCNFSM6AAAAAAVCLFFNI> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[Shackmeister]

Indeed it seems so :)
I think people and vendors like this handled in different fashions.

Lot of vendors just wants the DNP parts in the BOM but marked as DNP. Hence why it's not left out from Kicad side.
For JLC it should definitely be left out of both BOM and CPL file.

[zapta]

Since this plugin is JLCPCB specific, it makes sense to pick whatever works with JLCPCB. My main concern is discrepancy between what is marked as DNP in the schematic and what will actually be populated by JLCPCB.

…

On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:32 AM Frank Severinsen ***@***.***> wrote: Indeed it seems so :) I think people and vendors like this handled in different fashions. Lot of vendors just wants the DNP parts in the BOM but marked as DNP. Hence why it's not left out from Kicad side. For JLC it should definitely be left out of both BOM and CPL file. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#37 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAQVMQPVNVMGL7O2H4BG2KTW5XEBDANCNFSM6AAAAAAVCLFFNI> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[Shackmeister]

I understand the concern, that's the main reason I'm trying to get people to support the DNP field.
Currently (as far as I can tell) the DNP marking doesn't do anything when exporting to JLC. this mean I need to manually remove them from the Exported files

[zapta]

I am setting their LCSC value to DNP such that JLCPCB rejects them even though they are listed in the BOM and position file. Once this feature will be implemented, I will be able to have actual LCSC ids in the DNP parts as well, which is cleaner.

…

On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:42 AM Frank Severinsen ***@***.***> wrote: I understand the concern, that's the main reason I'm trying to get people to support the DNP field. Currently (as far as I can tell) the DNP marking doesn't do anything when exporting to JLC. this mean I need to manually remove them from the Exported files — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#37 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAQVMQO3IL56SZYY4AYSVDDW5XFIRANCNFSM6AAAAAAVCLFFNI> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[Shackmeister]

Sounds awesome :D thanks for your work!

[bennymeg]

So, if I will set the LCSC Part # as DNP for all the part in the BOM that satisfies:

    'dnp' in footprint.GetProperties().keys()

will be a better practice?

[zapta]

I think so, because it will allow to review positively on JLCPCB what parts were omitted.

…

On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 10:15 AM Benny Megidish ***@***.***> wrote: So, if I will set the LCSC Part # as DNP for all the part in the BOM that satisfies: 'dnp' in footprint.GetProperties().keys(): will be a better practice? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#37 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAQVMQLR4JIJ6PU3ZDCFPT3W54R4LANCNFSM6AAAAAAVCLFFNI> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[bennymeg]

Done.
But in my testing that property was not present.

[Shackmeister]

@bennymeg Thanks for adding, How can I use the "Nightly" version of your plugin for testing.

[bennymeg]

Published locally as 2.3.0.
Install it from zip (see readme for instructions).

[Shackmeister]

Tested, and it works great :)

[Shackmeister]

Seems like JLC is getting "smarter".
Now it will just assign the LCSC number if Value and footprint matches.
I think we might have to change Value to DNP or completely leave it out

[Shackmeister]

They even assign random Partnumbers now if the LCSC partnumber is missing.
@bennymeg Would it be possible to make an option to just leave the component out of the BOM?
Currently I Manually rework my BOM files after export to remove it

[bennymeg]

I'll try to think of a fix

[zapta]

I think that if a part is marked as 'leave out of BOM', it shouldn't be listed in the BOM.

…

On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 8:40 AM Benny Megidish ***@***.***> wrote: I'll try to think of a fix — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#37 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAQVMQK3PHY4NOFAMWK3DOLXSKDVPANCNFSM6AAAAAAVCLFFNI> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[Shackmeister]

@zapta

If you refer to the field called "Exclude from bill of materials", you are correct.
Unfortunately this is not the intended use of the field.
I have described this earlier in this thread.
You can find the developer discussion here:
https://gitlab.com/kicad/code/kicad/-/issues/8908