Hello, sorry for my bad English, translated from Spanish by Google translator, there are some forum user speak Spanish? although I understand written English
please follow the following steps
A: schematic view
1: put a resistor.
2: put a label and rename LAB1 [enter].
3: connect the label “LAB1” to pin 1 of resistor.
4: duplicate label (right click [duplicate])
5: rename LAB1 to LAB2 [enter].
6: connect the label “LAB2” to pin 2 of resistor.
6: Clicking on each pin, yellow lights lab1-to pin1 OK and lab2-to pin2 OK
B: goto view breadboard
the two pins are connected, appears, a dotted line between the pins, if you put a cable connector. In the schematic view also join labels
It is a BUG?, please confirm, YES / NO
Please reproduce this steps and tell me if they happen
Thanks
I just ran headlong into this bug today in version 0.9.6. Unfortunately I used this duplicate/rename technique for a few hours. And now the breadboard and pcb are all messed up. I’ve gotta try to delete every label that was created as a duplicate and then renamed which isn’t easy to figure out.
Is there any way to know if I’ve got them all by looking at details or something?
And is there a ticket for fixing this? This thread is from 2016.
no timeline on a fix yet though. There are some suggestions on a work around in the ticket which may help you (copying to the clip board does something at a fast read.) The reason this has been around since 2017 (the date of the pr) is that development stopped in 2016 and only restarted in 2019. There are still few resources and a large amount of work (much of it invisible to the general users), the web site and forum had basically no maintenance for 4 years or more years, and an entirely new build chain had to be built as the previous one was gone. That took a lot of time with the available resources. There were also legal problems that needed to be resolved which only happened early this year. As of now bugs are being worked on, but no one left is all that familiar with the code, and it is very complex (and pretty much completely undocumented!) There is a mechanism to vote to prioritize the PR on github (although I don’t know the details), so you may want to vote for this one.
Thank @vanepp for the background and the ticket reference. I did comment on the ticket. As for development and backlogs, I’d be happy to contribute where I can. I’m a very experienced C/C++ developer. I actually gave a shot at doing a build of Fritzing on my Mac M1 as I wanted to get a native build and contribute back, but I ran into a host of issues trying to build the prerequisite libraries. After several hours I threw up my hands. If someone could help me get over the hump, I’d be game. My plan at the moment was to wait for a bit to let some of the underlying libraries to be fully ready to go on M1 chips and then give another run at it. If there’s any advice you’d give on the build, lemme know.
Mac and Linux shouldn’t be to terribly different. I’ll give another shot at it when I get to a decent stopping point on my current design. Some time will have marched by on the M1 stuff. I did manage to get a successful build of the Qt base but not qt creator I think. It was a pretty crazy build. Anyway - I’ll give another shot. Thanks.
You shouldn’t have to build QT from source (unless the installer won’t deal with a M1 which sounds new), the installer figures it out and installs (at least on Windows and Linux, I haven’t done Macs) as long as the compilers are already present, on Linux it is happy with gcc, Windows is more complex, you need to get the right configuration of Visual Studio to have QT find the tool chain. You can probably fix that if you know enough about QT, but I typically just rerun the install if I screw it up.
I used Qt a decade ago or more but I forget the flow of things… is it the case that Qt is ultimately only responsible for converting described UI into source code that implements it?
In that case, you’re right that Qt doesn’t need to be M1 at all. My original goal in poking my head up around here was I wanted to see Fritzing move along the progression into M1/ARM land as I love the tool for maker projects. It’s lightweight, highly functional, and the most integrated experience I’ve had between a schematic, breadboard, and pcb.
I think that is true, as long as there is a tool chain available (and I think there is an ARM tool chain available in QT) then it should just work. I’m not anywhere near a QT expert though …