7bfba02ef0b0d2ddde2402e86641f442fa593328
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Umut CANandClaude Opus 5
|
34079ad0b4 |
fix(task-11): hatch the cut face, not its chord, and take the scaffolding with it
draw_material_hatch's handles branch read only the traced loop's `points`
and dropped the parallel `bulges`, so a cut face bounded by an arc was
hatched as the chord polygon - exactly the failure README.md and the
comment at backends/ezdxf_backend.py:1172-1176 name. MEASURED headless on
a 40x10 box closed by a 180 degree r=20 arc: boundary_from_entities ->
area 1028.318531, draw_material_hatch -> {'ok': True, 'points': 4} and
entity_measure(hatch) -> {'area': 400.0, 'exact': True}. 628.3 mm2, 61% of
the face, silently unhatched, and the payload stated no accuracy.
entity_create_hatch takes a vertex list on both engines, so an arc edge has
to reach it as vertices; the bug was dropping the curve, not the fact of
vertices. Each bulged segment is now expanded onto its real arc by
_flatten_bulge, spaced so no chord departs from it by more than the
declared HATCH_FLATTEN_SAGITTA (0.01). Same repro after: points 53, area
1027.905195 against the exact 1028.318531 - an error of 0.413 (0.040%),
and the payload says so rather than claiming exactness: `accuracy`
"flatten_tolerance" or "exact", `flatten_tolerance`, `curved_edges`,
`area` (the polygon actually written) and `boundary_area` (the loop's own
exact area) so the two can be compared instead of trusted. `accuracy` is
decided by comparing those two numbers, so a backend that reports no
`bulges` at all is still reported approximate rather than assumed exact. A
straight-sided face reads `exact` / 400.0 as before.
The handles branch also had no area guard - the "at least three points"
refusal only ever covered `boundary` - so a LINE plus a 180 degree ARC
traced to a two-vertex loop and wrote a HATCH of area 0.0 with ok: True.
That case now hatches the real semicircle (37 points, 156.880337 of
157.079633), and a loop that genuinely encloses nothing (three collinear
segments, boundary_from_entities area 0.0) is refused by name before
anything is written: "the hatch boundary encloses no area (measured 0)".
Second: boundary_from_entities does not merely compute a loop, it *writes*
one. The traced LWPOLYLINE was left in the drawing on layer 0 and named
nowhere in the result, so the caller could neither find nor delete it, and
drawing_critique / drawing_finalize scored it against the drawing under the
layer-discipline rule. MEASURED headless on a 40x10 rectangle of four
LINEs: 4 entities before, 6 after, by_type {'LINE': 4, 'LWPOLYLINE': 1,
'HATCH': 1}, the polyline on layer '0'. After: 5 entities, {'LINE': 4,
'HATCH': 1}, and the result carries traced {'handle': '34', 'removed':
True} - the boolean is reported rather than assumed, so a delete that
failed is visible. The delete runs in a `finally:`, so the refusal paths
above do not leave scaffolding either (3 entities before and after).
Third: the module SOURCE block asserted the cutting-plane line's thin
middle was "the `center` role (CENTER, 0.25 mm)" and that the pair gave
"the ISO appearance" at 2:1. engineering/layers.py:19 defines CENTER at
0.18. MEASURED headless after draw_section_line on a fresh EzdxfBackend:
layer_list reports GEOMETRY lineweight 50.0 and CENTER 18.0, i.e. 0.50/0.18
= 2.78:1. A fabricated number in a standards SOURCE block is the one thing
these blocks exist to prevent, so the block now states the measured pair,
names the ratio as 2.78:1, and does *not* quote the standard's own
wide:narrow ratio, which this module cannot transcribe. The wrong figure in
the previous commit message (
|
||
|
Umut CANandClaude Opus 5
|
64a57d74a0 |
feat(mech): SECTION 23 completes with centre_marks, section_line, hatch_material
centre_marks draws ISO 128-23 centre marks or full centre lines and reads
each circle's real centre and radius back out of the drawing through
entity_get instead of being told them - a radius restated from memory is
the silent wrong number this repository keeps refusing to ship. A handle
that is not a CIRCLE or ARC, and a circle in a plane tilted out of WCS XY
(which has no radius in this frame), are both refused by handle before
anything is written. The dash proportions are not transcribed here: the
prims are plain lines on CENTER, whose linetype already carries them.
section_line draws the ISO 128-40 cutting-plane line - wide segments at
the ends on GEOMETRY, the thin long-dash-dot middle on CENTER, an arrow at
each end whose head sits on the line end and points the way the section is
viewed, the same letter beyond both arrows - and returns the five-key
plane dict {p1, p2, label, direction, style} that mech_view_add(kind=
"section") consumes, so the label on the plan and the label on the view
are the same string by construction. A viewing direction parallel to the
plane is refused rather than drawn.
hatch_material hatches through standards.materials.hatch_for, so the
ISO 128-50 map and its refusal stay in one place; scale multiplies the
material's own pattern scale and angle replaces its angle. An unknown
material is refused with the list before any entity is written.
DEVIATION - one defect in the plan's own draw_material_hatch, fixed here
with two tests that fail against the plan's code. It called
entity_create_hatch with ROLE_LAYER["hatch"] without creating that layer,
the same omission review found in Task 10's draw_annotation_prims.
MEASURED live on AutoCAD 2026 (probe: GetActiveObject, Documents.Add(),
doc.Close(False) in a finally): on a scratch document whose layer table is
['0'], msp.AddHatch(0, "ANSI31", False) + AppendOuterLoop + Evaluate()
leaves the AcDbHatch in model space, and the very next statement
hatch.Layer = "HATCH" - which is the one line _apply_entity_attrs runs -
raises com_error (-2147352567, ..., 'Key not found', ..., -2145386476);
model space then still reports [('AcDbHatch', '0')] and the layer table is
still ['0'], so the refusal leaves an orphan hatch on layer 0. After
doc.Layers.Add("HATCH") the same assignment succeeds. drawing_open runs no
bootstrap, which is exactly when a cut face has no HATCH layer to land on.
draw_material_hatch now calls ensure_annotation_layers before creating the
hatch and reports layer / layers_created, as draw_annotation_prims does.
The whole task re-measured live afterwards through ComBackend on a fresh
scratch document (layer table ['0']): hatch_material -> {'ok': True,
'handle': '82', 'pattern': 'ANSI31', 'layer': 'HATCH', 'layers_created':
['HATCH']} with the entity read back as HATCH on HATCH; centre_marks on a
live CIRCLE r=12.5 -> sources [{'handle': '84', 'center': [80.0, 0.0],
'radius': 12.5}]; section_line -> 9 entities and the five-key plane; layer
table after ['0', 'CENTER', 'GEOMETRY', 'HATCH', 'TEXT']; document closed.
tests/test_mech_marks.py: 17 passed. Gates: ruff check clean, inventory
regenerated to 209 tools, test_tool_registry (engineering 12 -> 15, total
206 -> 209), test_discovery_aliases, test_tool_inventory,
test_capability_contract and test_release_consistency all pass. Full
suite: 3343 passed, the 6 pre-existing failures verified identical with
this change stashed, and
test_release_consistency.py::test_document_numbers_match_the_tree
deselected as Global Constraints instructs.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FKFStjEFzpGyLq5bMpWxTd
|