Hello everyone. Instead of creating a new topic I decided to make my request here, about the possibility to have passmarks with or without seam allowance, in the same piece. This because some patternmaking system lead you to draw pieces in which you have standard 1 cm seam allowance in some parts, and 0 in others. As you can see in this pic, i have to put passmarks on armhole with internal path tool, because I cant with normal passmarks
Thank you @luca_lavore for identifying this problem. To summarize this problem:
In Detail mode:
- Select a point as a passmark: Right click on a workpiece and select ‘Options’. Select ‘Path’ in the left hand menu. Check the ‘Enable Seam Allowance’ box. Right click on a point in the path where the seam allowance is 0 width for before and/or after the point. Then select ‘Passmark’ in the point options.
- Select the passmark symbol: (Here is where the problem occurs) In the ‘Options’ left hand menu select ‘Passmarks’. Passmark points don’t appear in the picklist if they have a 0 width seam allowance on either or both sides of the point .
@luca_lavore: Do you know how to add an issue to the Github code repo? Click the green ‘New Issue’ button in the upper right of the issues list. And post what you’ve posted here in the forum.
Issue… the term “passmarks” does not exist in the English language… and yet nobody but me seems to get this fact?
This is already an issue
So, it looks like this never got added to github issue tracker, and the same behavior is still present? Or am I just missing a critical step somewhere?
Hi @Drew, We will update the vocabulary issues in the near future.
Sorry, should have been more specific - I meant being able to have passmarks shown when the margin is 0.
Hey @Drew, Would you add this issue in Github? If you don’t have a Github account, please create one then on this page click the Green “New Issue” button and simply say that passmarks should show when the seam allowance width is 0.
Thanks! We want everyone’s name as a contributor!
Seeing as how I’ve been a vocal critic of the use of “passmarks” - I can put my money where my mouth is. I can fix both those issues, correct several other issues regarding notches, as well as add functionality. I’ve already fixed these issues long ago… So - included is my new schema and some notch related screen grabs. For purposes of uniformity you can’t just change the dialog text, the schema tag(s) should change as well. Also, not that I have done so on my end (yet), I would also assume the translation(s) would need updating as well?
Anyhow - Circled in the pic is a “zero seam allowance” example with the notch on the seam. You many note that one may select to show 1, 2, or 3 of ANY notch type (the way it should be - not just the slit type), as well as over riding the default geometry or color of any individual notch. I’m thinking of adding “notch styles”, where style presets can be created and saved, then used in dialogs or even a “current notch style” toolbar - to quickly set notch geometry fields.
Let me know your thoughts on this.
<node after="0" before="0" idObject="18" notch="true" notchAngle="0" notchColor="red" notchCount="2" notchLength="0.25" notchName="Test Notch" notchSubtype="straightforward" notchType="vExternal" notchWidth="0.25" type="NodePoint"/>
Notch Color pref:
Notch Geometry prefs:
Zero seam allowance test example:
We’re all looking forward to seeing your pull request on Pull requests · FashionFreedom/Seamly2D · GitHub.
Let’s get your changes into the code base within the week. We’re planning to release v0.6.0.2, and I’m sure all the users on this Forum would love to see your code included.
Hey Susan… I’ll see what I can do. I think doing it incrementally may be the way to go? There’s a lot of changes / additions I made so my fork is drastically different that I can’t just use files as is or cut & paste. I’ve been cleaning up the code to be more uniform, following along the lines of Qt naming and style conversations… as well as ridding the code of things like bad abbreviations (which should not be used except for commonly accepted ones) and nonsensical function and method names, etc. In other words - to make it more (English) readable… after all programming is like 90% reading 10% writing code.
Anyhow, I’ll open a “notch” issue on github and go from there.
Perfect. Make a clone of the current Seamly code and name your branch after the issue that you create specifically for creating symbols on the seamline. Fix the issue using your fork as a guide, then make a pull request. Super! I’m very excited about this! If you can’t do this, we can figure something else out.
What version of Qt do you use? We upgraded to 5.15 this past month.
Hey @Drew, do you have a github user account? Here’s the old issue for renaming ‘Passmarks’ in English to ‘Notches’.
HI Susan… I’m using 5.14.2 on my Windows 8 laptop, I tried 5.15 on a new Windows 10, but it was failing to compile in debug mode.?? It may be an issue with having 5.9 on there as well… I will remove all and try reinstalling 515.
In any case - are you sure the project is using 5.15? Last week or so, (new) Roman reverted some changes back to pre 5.13… Here’s one of the commits:
d7d5658f8 “Reverted some thing not compliant with Qt 5.13”
And the CONTRIBUTING.md files says"
“Periodically build your issue branch. You’ll need Qt 5.12.x and Qt Creator 4.3.x with MSVC 2017 64bit or MinGW 7.3.0 64bit in your Qt project Kit.”
In fact I built the project last night and got 50+ warnings for deprecated pre 5.14.2 functions, and there would be more if I was using 5.15. BTW… I noticed last night too that the readme.txt and readme.md do not match… the txt reads 5.12 while the md says 5.15?
Just a side note… One can only download the “offline” installers for Qt 5.12 and before… after that one needs to use the online installer. IMO I might stick with the minimum of 5.12 for those that may not be able to use the online installers? Which was sort of why I brought up the conditional version compiling to Roman. In any case I’ll eventually update to 5.15.
Anyhow… I had all the fixes to replace “passmark” last night, but I forgot to checkout / create a new issue branch first, Doh. So I need to do it over… and I noticed you already updated issue #183 to rename the term passmark. Here’s my question -since I’m not that up on the intricacies of Git yet. I can makes the changes for issue #183, and create a new issue xxx to fix for a second notch with zero seam allowance. Would we not have to commit changes to fix #183 before committing changes to fix the notch with zero SA? Otherwise if you’d be undoing previous changes?
Let me know if I got this correct… So I could checkout develop and create a new branch on my repo say named notches. Make and commit changes and push those to the a new branch on the main repo named issue#183 then create a pull request. In the mean time I can then work on issue#xxx to allow notches on seam with zero allowance. Commit those changes and push them to the main issue#xxx and create a pull request Then assuming there is no problems you can merge issue#183 and then merge issue#xxx? Then I can merge notches into develop or when I pull new changes from main develop the changes are reflected in my develop?
OR do I have to create a new issue#183 branch from my develop, make changes, commit and push those changes, merge those into my develop, then create a new issue#xxx branch, make changes, commit, push those?
Checkout develop & create branch issue-#183-rename-to-notches (or whatever, just reference the issue #). Make changes, create pull request & I’ll merge.
Rinse repeat with issue-#282-improve-notches.
Our new github actions build uses Qt 5.15. The Readme is a a few steps behind The build pipeline is still being improved.
Hey when you make the pull request, I’ll review it & then you can merge it to get your name on the commit.
I do have a github account - what would you like me to do?
Looks like Douglas has some good fixes going!
Hey @Drew Drew! Would you like to contribute to the github repo and/or code? What’s your skillset?
And @Douglas, I checked and we’re still using 5.13.2 in our github actions pipeline. But we’ve tested the build and updated the code to run in 5.15 when we’re ready. ;D
Ok… Think I got (g)it…
Not a problem… code should still compile under 5.15… just generates a lot of warnings. All bets may be off when Qt 6 comes along.
Should be able to push issue#183 mon nite - Qt decided to throw me one of those frustrating curves today and refused to compile due to some files it couldn’t find… that were definitely there. The qmake output messages are cryptic at best. Anyhow I just cleared everything, shut everything down and rebooted and lo and behold it compiled without making any changes. Go figure. ??? Hopefully I Should be able to push the notch improvements tues or wed nite.