Tesselated via

[simbilod]

via_stack_from_rules is like via_stack, but instead of using hardcoded via sizes, it calculates how big the vias have to be (above a minimum size) given spacing and inclusion rules to maximize number of vias and via area

Only useful if your foundry allows you to change these things of course

Could be more general for other via stack functions

@HelgeGehring

For instance, here VIA1 and VIA2 have the same sizing and spacing rules, but different inclusions, and VIA2 ends up being sized larger:

def via_stack_from_rules(
    size: Tuple[float, float] = (1.2, 1.2),
    layers: LayerSpecs = ("M1", "M2", "M3"),
    layer_offsets: Optional[Tuple[float, ...]] = None,
    vias: Optional[Tuple[Optional[ComponentSpec], ...]] = (via1, via2),
    via_min_size: Tuple[Tuple[float, float]] = ((0.2, 0.2), (0.2, 0.2)),
    via_min_gap: Tuple[Tuple[float, float]] = ((0.1, 0.1), (0.1, 0.1)),
    via_min_enclosure: Tuple[float] = (0.15, 0.25),
    layer_port: LayerSpec = None,
) -> Component:

[sourcery-ai]

Sourcery Code Quality Report

✅  Merging this PR will increase code quality in the affected files by 1.17%.

Quality metrics	Before	After	Change
Complexity	11.40 🙂	10.41 🙂	-0.99 👍
Method Length	170.00 😞	187.83 😞	17.83 👎
Working memory	14.60 😞	14.85 😞	0.25 👎
Quality	38.75% 😞	39.92% 😞	1.17% 👍

Other metrics	Before	After	Change
Lines	118	266	148

Changed files	Quality Before	Quality After	Quality Change
gdsfactory/components/via_stack.py	38.75% 😞	39.92% 😞	1.17% 👍

Here are some functions in these files that still need a tune-up:

File	Function	Complexity	Length	Working Memory	Quality	Recommendation
gdsfactory/components/via_stack.py	via_stack_from_rules	14 🙂	382 ⛔	18 ⛔	27.22% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
gdsfactory/components/via_stack.py	via_stack	14 🙂	329 ⛔	17 ⛔	29.15% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
gdsfactory/components/via_stack.py	optimized_via	3 ⭐	103 🙂	11 😞	63.71% 🙂	Extract out complex expressions
gdsfactory/components/via_stack.py	test_via_stack_from_rules	0 ⭐	136 😞	9 🙂	66.52% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods

Legend and Explanation

The emojis denote the absolute quality of the code:

• ⭐ excellent
• 🙂 good
• 😞 poor
• ⛔ very poor

The 👍 and 👎 indicate whether the quality has improved or gotten worse with this pull request.

---

Please see our documentation here for details on how these metrics are calculated.

We are actively working on this report - lots more documentation and extra metrics to come!

Help us improve this quality report!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1391 (865abb5) into main (7273399) will increase coverage by 0.07%.
The diff coverage is 93.84%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1391      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   69.49%   69.57%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         366      366              
  Lines       21913    21972      +59     
  Branches     3141     3147       +6     
==========================================
+ Hits        15229    15286      +57     
- Misses       5781     5782       +1     
- Partials      903      904       +1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
gdsfactory/components/via_stack.py	95.41% <93.84%> (-2.59%)	⬇️
gdsfactory/components/via.py	80.00% <0.00%> (+6.66%)	⬆️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[HelgeGehring]

Looks great!

What is layer_port?

And I'm wondering, could we somehow move the min and max size in the via definition in the PDKs?

[simbilod]

layer_port is an argument in the original via_stack function, I think it sets the layer on which the electrical port is

We could do something like this:

(1) New defaults to None

def via_stack_from_rules(
    size: Tuple[float, float] = (1.2, 1.2),
    layers: LayerSpecs = ("M1", "M2", "M3"),
    layer_offsets: Optional[Tuple[float, ...]] = None,
    vias: Optional[Tuple[Optional[ComponentSpec], ...]] = (via1, via2),
    via_min_size: Tuple[Tuple[float, float]] = (None, None),
    via_min_gap: Tuple[Tuple[float, float]] = (None, None),
    via_min_enclosure: Tuple[float] = (None, None),
    layer_port: LayerSpec = None,
) -> Component:

(2) Default to some PDK value if None:

[...]

    for current_via, min_size, min_gap, min_enclosure in zip(
        vias, via_min_size, via_min_gap, via_min_enclosure
    ):
        min_size = min_size or (pdk.via_min_size_x[current_via.info["layer"]], pdk.via_min_size_y[current_via.info["layer"]])
        min_gap = min_gap or (pdk.via_min_gap_x[current_via.info["layer"]], pdk.via_min_gap_y[current_via.info["layer"]])
        min_enclosure = min_enclosure or pdk.via_min_enclosure[current_via.info["layer"]]

        [...]

I don't know if we have such defaults yet, or what the best way to define /access them would be

[joamatab]

Looks great, thank you Simon,

yes, moving technology specific values to the PDK can be done easily on each PDK, or we can start using gf.Pdk.constants