Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Beam_faces_match_btlx #242

Closed
wants to merge 7 commits into from
Closed

Beam_faces_match_btlx #242

wants to merge 7 commits into from

Conversation

obucklin
Copy link
Contributor

@obucklin obucklin commented Mar 19, 2024

Changed Beam.faces to match position and orientation of BTLx ReferenceSide.

BTLx ReferenceSide indexing begins with 1, so the ReferenceSide index will be the Beam.faces index +1.

Beam.faces[i] = ReferenceSide: i+1

I also changed the BTLx.frame to match the BTLx Part_Ref base Frame.

What type of change is this?

  • Bug fix in a backwards-compatible manner.
  • New feature in a backwards-compatible manner.
  • Breaking change: bug fix or new feature that involve incompatible API changes.
  • Other (e.g. doc update, configuration, etc)

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your code.

  • I added a line to the CHANGELOG.md file in the Unreleased section under the most fitting heading (e.g. Added, Changed, Removed).
  • I ran all tests on my computer and it's all green (i.e. invoke test).
  • I ran lint on my computer and there are no errors (i.e. invoke lint).
  • I added new functions/classes and made them available on a second-level import, e.g. compas_timber.datastructures.Beam.
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.
  • I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)

@obucklin
Copy link
Contributor Author

I tested this on existing joints and the BTLx export, and didn't find any problems. we will see.....

Copy link
Contributor

@chenkasirer chenkasirer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just to conclude our discussion:
To me it makes much more sense to put this in BTLxPart instead of in Beam. I know we wanted to make changes to Beam.frame to bring it closer to BTLx but to me that's a bigger refactoring then just moving the frame reference point and could potentially include:

  • modifying Beam.frame rather than adding an additional frame
  • refactoring all the depending parameters (centerline, start, end etc.)
  • refactoring the features to be defined in the new coordinate space instead of world space

In the meantime, I would move part_ref and (part)faces into BTLxPart until we have an agreement as these are anyways BTLx specific properties.

@obucklin
Copy link
Contributor Author

obucklin commented Jul 9, 2024

superceded by another PR

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants