CURA-9839 add bridging and overhang line type color scheme - #2366
Conversation
Erwan MATHIEU (wawanbreton)
changed the title
Test Results31 tests 31 ✅ 5s ⏱️ Results for commit 1638756. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
CURA-9839 GCC15 seems to be a bit less tolerant i.r.t references to null objects, which requires some unit tests to be more properly setup
Remco Burema (rburema)
left a comment
Remco Burema (rburema)
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Far less intimidating than it seems on first glance; basically all of this code is just threading the attributes variable where it needs to go.
I don't really have any serious comments on this, despite its size, seems solid!
I'm going to try all of this out on Windows before I sent it to QA though -- normally I'd skip that, but this has Arcus PR's connected to it, and I'll need it working on my system anyway when we merge.
| None = 0, | ||
| Overhanging = 0x1, | ||
| Bridging = 0x2, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not really important, but: You can do 0b0, 0b1, 0b10 these days (though that might get quite verbose if we have many of them) -- I guess you can also do 1 << n though 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed there are many ways of displaying this properly. I used the 0x because this is what I'm used to 😄 but the binary notation is more explicit indeed.
| && paths.back().mesh == current_mesh_) // spiralize can only change when a travel path is in between | ||
| if (! paths.empty() && paths.back().config == config && ! paths.back().done && paths.back().flow == flow && paths.back().width_factor == width_factor | ||
| && paths.back().speed_factor == speed_factor && paths.back().z_offset == z_offset && paths.back().mesh == current_mesh_ | ||
| && paths.back().print_attributes == print_attributes) // spiralize can only change when a travel path is in between |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess we absolutely need this to show it in the front-end properly, and in practice it won't make a difference, but in theory we could have a situation where say, the bridging and overhang are printed with the same settings, which would previously be merged.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes indeed, this can split up GCodePaths that were previously in one part, to multiple parts. I remember doing that in the past and then having to fix some code that was impacted by side-effect. But on the principle, the rest of the engine should be independant of the GCodePaths grouping, especially for this kind of case.
3 participants
This PR adds the possibility to set special attributes to print segments. Those attributes are sent to front-end for display purposes.
In this case, we are interested in displaying the segment that are overhanging and bridging, so we also add 2 flags for those cases and set them when appropriate.
Comes with Ultimaker/Cura#21766
CURA-9839