What requires a HOLD vote on the Parts Tracker

[Willy Tschager]

Your turn:

16    ERROR    Double lines found.    HOLD
17    WARNING    Maybe wrong color for sticker used.
18    ERROR    Length of part description.    HOLD
19    WARNING    Maybe leading spaces in part description.
20    ERROR    Keywords entry length.

I can't find anything in the spec that forbids 18,19,20. 19 maybe warn but programs should strip these leading spaces anyway.

18 Good catch. On the other hand we have a:

!HELP (Authors should constrain themselves to a 50-character limit to keep the text readable.)

which gives a good indication that we should keep an eye on for example:

11568p01.dat - Animal Squirrel with Black Nose, Mouth and Eyes with Eyelashes and Reddish Brown Face Decorations Pattern
u9310c02.dat - Fabuland House Block with Blue Door and 2 Blue Round Windows with One Semicircular and Three Sextant Panes Panes (Complete)

w.

[Willy Tschager]

Your turn:

16    ERROR    Double lines found.    HOLD
17    WARNING    Maybe wrong color for sticker used.
18    ERROR    Length of part description.    HOLD
19    WARNING    Maybe leading spaces in part description.
20    ERROR    Keywords entry length.

16    Autocorrect
17    Prompt
18    Prompt
19    Autocorrect
20    Prompt

w.

[Philippe Hurbain]

19    WARNING    Maybe leading spaces in part description.

This is a complex one. DH takes care of trying to keep part length sorting OK, adding a double space in front of length numbers with only one digit in integer part, removing double space everywhere otherwise. But sometimes we don't want that (because the number is not actually a length) so user needs some control.

[Philippe Hurbain]

And regarding potential PT integration: should the PT try to prompt anything or just reject the part if such problems exist and call it a day? It needs rework anyway at that point so IMO it can't be ready for PT in that case.

Just to make sure: any certification tool must report ALL the issues it finds and can't auto-correct, and not stop after finding the first error...

[Willy Tschager]

Next one:

21    ERROR    Some keywords are also in part description.    HOLD
22    ERROR    Filename does not matches filetitle.    HOLD
23    ERROR    Author real name is not set.
24    ERROR    Author user name is not set.
25    ERROR    BFC is not set.    HOLD

[Willy Tschager]

Next one:

21    ERROR    Some keywords are also in part description.    HOLD
22    ERROR    Filename does not matches filetitle.    HOLD
23    ERROR    Author real name is not set.
24    ERROR    Author user name is not set.
25    ERROR    BFC is not set.    HOLD

21 http://www.ldraw.org/article/340.html#keywords Strip the word appearing or number in the description from the keywords
22 Silly me! I cannot fine the related spec.
23 http://www.ldraw.org/article/398.html#Syntax Prompt
24 http://www.ldraw.org/article/398.html#Syntax Prompt
25 http://www.ldraw.org/article/415 Prompt

[Orion Pobursky]

Next one:

21    ERROR    Some keywords are also in part description.    HOLD
22    ERROR    Filename does not matches filetitle.    HOLD
23    ERROR    Author real name is not set.
24    ERROR    Author user name is not set.
25    ERROR    BFC is not set.    HOLD

21 Should not be holdable, change the spec
22 Reject submission to PT
23,24 These are required for licencing information, reject submission to PT
25 BFC required for all new parts, reject submission PT

[Santeri Piippo]

I have now gotten a proof-of-concept part checker up:

• Source code
  
• Web front-end
  

Tests currently implemented:

• Check for self-intersecting, skew and concave quads
  
• Check for collinearity
  
• Check for zero matrix determinant (row or column all zero)
  
• Check for scaling of not-scalable primitives (needs some kind of threshold)
  
• Check for invalid colours (not in LDConfig.ldr and not direct colours, restrictions on direct colours not yet implemented)
  

The quadrilateral checks can create redundant errors, e.g. a report for concave quad when it's actually a bowtie, because technically bowtie quads are concave and there's separate tests making these results.

No header tests yet because the header currently is not parsed at all. No corrections performed yet either.

Also includes a test for very thin polygons (smallest angle less than 0.5°). While they are not considered a problem, they're reported as a purely informational notice since they can point to other problems (e.g. gaps).

[Chris Dee]

I have now gotten a proof-of-concept part checker up:

• Source code
  
• Web front-end
  

Tests currently implemented:

• Check for self-intersecting, skew and concave quads
  
• Check for collinearity
  
• Check for zero matrix determinant (row or column all zero)
  
• Check for scaling of not-scalable primitives (needs some kind of threshold)
  
• Check for invalid colours (not in LDConfig.ldr and not direct colours, restrictions on direct colours not yet implemented)
  

The quadrilateral checks can create redundant errors, e.g. a report for concave quad when it's actually a bowtie, because technically bowtie quads are concave and there's separate tests making these results.

No header tests yet because the header currently is not parsed at all. No corrections performed yet either.

Also includes a test for very thin polygons (smallest angle less than 0.5°). While they are not considered a problem, they're reported as a purely informational notice since they can point to other problems (e.g. gaps).

Pllease don't spend time on adding header checks. I have a header checking script that I use during the Parts Update build and this will soon be incoporated into the submit process. I'll also review this thread to see if other header checks need to be added.

[Philippe Hurbain]

I have now gotten a proof-of-concept part checker upretty nice so far! and damn fast

One little request, even during debugging phase: please display the name of file just processed, it allows find again the file tested to check results againt other tools (easy to get lost in my huge collection of old files!)

I noticed that angles for coplanarity checks are consistently a bit lower than values reported by LDDP or planarcheck. Not annoying here, but might hide a more serious problem?

Also includes a test for very thin polygons (smallest angle less than 0.5°). While they are not considered a problem, they're reported as a purely informational notice since they can point to other problems (e.g. gaps).

Min/max colinear theresholds are specified here: http://www.ldraw.org/article/512.html#colinear. Might be interesting to display a warning for lower/higher values...

[Santeri Piippo]

Pllease don't spend time on adding header checks. I have a header checking script that I use during the Parts Update build and this will soon be incoporated into the submit process. I'll also review this thread to see if other header checks need to be added.

Interesting. I guess I'll dedicate to the body checks then.

Pretty nice so far! and damn fast

Thanks!

One little request, even during debugging phase: please display the name of file just processed, it allows find again the file tested to check results againt other tools (easy to get lost in my huge collection of old files!)

The commandline tool does that but for the web front I didn't think it was so important yet. But you make a point and I'll add it.

I noticed that angles for coplanarity checks are consistently a bit lower than values reported by LDDP or planarcheck. Not annoying here, but might hide a more serious problem?

Coplanarity is checked by splitting the quad and computing the skew angle from the angle between the two plane normals. Both triangle configurations are tested and the first one to yield a problem is reported. Come to think of it, it needs to test both and use the larger angle.

Min/max colinear theresholds are specified here: http://www.ldraw.org/article/512.html#colinear. Might be interesting to display a warning for lower/higher values...

I think I need to rewrite the concave and colinear tests so that I can use these angle thresholds. Right now I'm using vector math.

[Willy Tschager]

25    ERROR    BFC is not set.    HOLD
26    ERROR    License is not set.    HOLD
27    ERROR    Part type is not set.    HOLD
28    ERROR    Primitives needs to have CCW winding.    HOLD
29    ERROR    Use of !KEYWORDS is not allowed for this part type.    HOLD
30    ERROR    Part description contains Tab character.    HOLD

[Willy Tschager]

25    ERROR    BFC is not set.    HOLD
26    ERROR    License is not set.    HOLD
27    ERROR    Part type is not set.    HOLD
28    ERROR    Primitives needs to have CCW winding.    HOLD
29    ERROR    Use of !KEYWORDS is not allowed for this part type.    HOLD
30    ERROR    Part description contains Tab character.    HOLD

25 http://www.ldraw.org/article/415 Prompt
26 http://www.ldraw.org/article/398.html Set automatically to !LICENSE Redistributable under CCAL version 2.0 : see CAreadme.txt
27 http://www.ldraw.org/article/398.html Prompt
28 http://www.ldraw.org/article/415.html#library Prompt
29 http://www.ldraw.org/article/340.html#scope Remove keywords
30 http://www.ldraw.org/article/218.html#files Prompt

[Philippe Hurbain]

Yes.
28- could be auto corrected: if primitive is CW, change type to CCW and invert winding of triangles and quads. Probably a moot point as most primitives are done with primgen, so no need to lose time on corrector...

[Willy Tschager]

31    ERROR    HELP entry length.
32    ERROR    Word 'new' or 'old' is used in part description.
33    ERROR    Use of (Needs work).    HOLD
34    ERROR    Entry for !CATEGORY.
35    ERROR    Use of !CATEGORY is not allowed at for this part type.

[Willy Tschager]

31    ERROR    HELP entry length.
32    ERROR    Word 'new' or 'old' is used in part description.
33    ERROR    Use of (Needs work).    HOLD
34    ERROR    Entry for !CATEGORY.
35    ERROR    Use of !CATEGORY is not allowed at for this part type.

31 http://www.ldraw.org/article/398.html#Syntax Prompt
32 ???
33 http://www.ldraw.org/article/398.html This is clearly wrong as (Needs work) is allowed.
34 ???
35 http://www.ldraw.org/article/340 Prompt for primitives

Mike! Please help.

w.

[Michael Heidemann]

31    ERROR    HELP entry length.
32    ERROR    Word 'new' or 'old' is used in part description.
33    ERROR    Use of (Needs work).    HOLD
34    ERROR    Entry for !CATEGORY.
35    ERROR    Use of !CATEGORY is not allowed at for this part type.

31 http://www.ldraw.org/article/398.html#Syntax Prompt
32 ???
33 http://www.ldraw.org/article/398.html This is clearly wrong as (Needs work) is allowed.
34 ???
35 http://www.ldraw.org/article/340 Prompt for primitives

Mike! Please help.

w.

I just answer right our of my mind:
31: - what do you mean with "Prompt"
32: These words are time based (now) and shall be not used - see several discussions in the old forum
33: clearly correct, as you have to describe what needs work in the comments
34: There is a problem with the !Category entry. - i need to file to see what causes this error.
35: - what do you mean with "Prompt" - primitives are not allowed to carry a !Category entry.

If I remember correctly this is all written in the documentation of DATHeader. Currently I do not have the time to look into it. Sorry.
cu
Mikeheide
- I made a wrong numbering, now fixed -

[Orion Pobursky]

31 http://www.ldraw.org/article/398.html#Syntax Prompt
32 ???
33 http://www.ldraw.org/article/398.html This is clearly wrong as (Needs work) is allowed.
34 ???
35 http://www.ldraw.org/article/340 Prompt for primitives

Mike! Please help.

w.

I just answer right our of my mind:
33: - what do you mean with "Prompt"
34: These words are time based (now) and shall be not used - see several discussions in the old forum
35: clearly correct, as you have to describe what needs work in the comments
36: There is a problem with the !Category entry. - i need to file to see what causes this error.
37: - what do you mean with "Prompt" - primitives are not allowed to carry a !Category entry.

If I remember correctly this is all written in the documentation of DATHeader. Currently I do not have the time to look into it. Sorry.
cu
Mikeheide

Based on Mike's feedback:

33: Not an error
34: Style based, not an error
35: Not an error
36: If it's for a !CATEGORY without an entry or a category that is not on the master list then hold
37: Hold for primitives and subparts

[Michael Heidemann]

31    ERROR    HELP entry length.
32    ERROR    Word 'new' or 'old' is used in part description.
33    ERROR    Use of (Needs work).    HOLD
34    ERROR    Entry for !CATEGORY.
35    ERROR    Use of !CATEGORY is not allowed at for this part type.

Now I have my code on hand and will give a more detailed information of the meaning of this short error messages.
31 - The entry in the !HELP section exceeds the length of 90 characters in a single line. The 90 characters are implemented after the 50 character limit seemed to the people too short.
32 - If we describe a parts shape as "new" it will be in maybe one year "old". So type1 or similar will work much better.
33 - (Needs work) is allowed _if_ there is a comment that explains what needs to be done. If there is no comment this error will rise.
34 - The !CATEGORY entry has to be from the list of categories that is available on LDraw.org. If this is not the case this error will rise.
35 - Part types are (Part|Subpart|Primitive|48_Primitive|Shortcut) and for some the use of !CATEGORY is not allowed. If used for the wrong part type this error will rise.

I hope this will help.
Mikeheide

[Michael Heidemann]

Officially we have only the outdated L3P error list:

http://www.ldraw.org/library/tracker/ref/l3pmsg/

while most of us use the output of Datheader (the following list was kindly provided by Mike Heidemann, author of the prog):


1    ERROR    Embedded POV Code found.    HOLD
2    ERROR    '0 WRITE' found. - HOLD
3    ERROR    '0 BFC CERTIFY INVERTNEXT' found.    HOLD
4    ERROR    '0 ROTATION' found.    HOLD
5    ERROR    '0 COLOR' found.    HOLD
6    ERROR    Incorrect use of only '0' for comments. Should be '0 //' instead.
7    ERROR    Not all used colors in LDConfig.ldr.    HOLD
8    ERROR    Matrix all zero found.    HOLD
9    ERROR    Identical vertices found.    HOLD
10    ERROR    Colinear vertices found.    HOLD
11    ERROR    Bad Vertex Sequence found.    HOLD
12    ERROR    Concave quads found.    HOLD
13    ERROR    Coplanarity.    HOLD
14    ERROR    Incorrect color for linetype.    HOLD
15    ERROR    Loop in reference found.    HOLD
16    ERROR    Double lines found.    HOLD
17    WARNING    Maybe wrong color for sticker used.
18    ERROR    Length of part description.    HOLD
19    WARNING    Maybe leading spaces in part description.
20    ERROR    Keywords entry length.
21    ERROR    Some keywords are also in part description.    HOLD
22    ERROR    Filename does not matches filetitle.    HOLD
23    ERROR    Author real name is not set.
24    ERROR    Author user name is not set.
25    ERROR    BFC is not set.    HOLD
26    ERROR    License is not set.    HOLD
27    ERROR    Part type is not set.    HOLD
28    ERROR    Primitives needs to have CCW winding.    HOLD
29    ERROR    Use of !KEYWORDS is not allowed for this part type.    HOLD
30    ERROR    Part description contains Tab character.    HOLD
31    ERROR    HELP entry length.
32    ERROR    Word 'new' or 'old' is used in part description.
33    ERROR    Use of (Needs work).    HOLD
34    ERROR    Entry for !CATEGORY.
35    ERROR    Use of !CATEGORY is not allowed at for this part type.
36    ERROR    High-res primitive has to start with '48\'.    HOLD
37    ERROR    Description for primitives should not start with '_' or '~'.    HOLD
38    ERROR    Filename for parts, shortcuts and primitives should not start with '48\' or 's\'.    HOLD
39    ERROR    Filename for subparts has to start with 's\'.    HOLD
40    ERROR    Description for subparts has to start with '~'.    HOLD
41    ERROR    Description for subparts should not start with '_' or '='.
42    ERROR    Description for parts should not start with '_' or '='.
43    ERROR    Description for shortcuts and/or physical_colour parts has to start with '_'.    HOLD
44    ERROR    Filename for shortcuts contains usually a 'c' or 'd'.
45    ERROR    Extension has to be .dat    HOLD
46    ERROR    Special characters in description not allowed.    HOLD
47    ERROR    Lines do not end with <CR><LF>.
48    ERROR    Author !HISTORY entry has no brackets.
49    ERROR    Not scalable primitive is scaled.
50    ERROR    primitive is scaled not only in Y direction.
51    ERROR    First line after BFC INVERTNEXT isn't linetype 1.
52    ERROR    Problem with the RGB value.
53    ERROR    '~Moved to' file used.
54    ERROR    Wrong BFC command found.
55    ERROR    Some keywords are used twice in KEYWORDS section.    HOLD
56    ERROR    'Minifig Accessory' found in part description.
57    ERROR    'Figure Accessory' found in part description.
58    WARNING    'INVERTNEXT' used although not necessary.
59    WARNING    TJunktion detected.
60    ERROR    Wrong brackets around username used. Only [] is allowed
61    ERROR    Description for alias parts should start with '='
62    ERROR    Description for Physical_Colour parts should mention the used colors
63    ERROR    Only linetype 0 and 1 are allowed in Physical_Colour parts.
64    ERROR    Wrong color (16 or/and 24) used for Physical_Colour part
65    ERROR    Only linetype 0 and 1 are allowed in Alias parts.
66    ERROR    Only one (1) linetype 1 is allowed in Alias parts.
67    ERROR    Only color 16 is allowed in Alias parts.
68    ERROR    Alias needs to be mentioned in the comments in the form 'Alias of partnumber'.
69    ERROR    Mentioned part number in the alias comment is wrong.
70    WARNING    Origin is outside the Boundingbox.
71    ERROR    American English words used in part description.
72    WARNING    Too much empty lines at the end of the file.
73    WARNING    Mirrored studs detected.
74    WARNING    Flat subfile scaled in flat direction
75    ERROR    Optional line with same vertices than line found.
76    ERROR    Leading or trailing zeros found.
77    ERROR    Overlapping triangle found.
78    ERROR    Lines with wrong number of arguments found.
79    WARNING    Filename ending does not match declared LDRAW_ORG file type.
80    ERROR    Moved To setnumber with Extension    HOLD
81    WARNING    Filename ending does not match declared LDRAW_ORG part type qualifier.


w.

I just like to mention here that most of the errors that are marked with HOLD are confirmed with our PT Admin on 08.11.2009. The original request for adding this HOLD vote hint came from Willy Tschager.
But I am open for changes if they are useful.
cu
mikeheide

[Willy Tschager]

Mike,

just read above. We are using Datheader's error list to understand what an online version on the PT should looking for.

w.

[Willy Tschager]

While in Billund we worked on Datheader's HOLD list an came up with this:


  LDraw HOLD Reasons.pdf (Size: 32.25 KB / Downloads: 25)

The process was working through the list and compare it with the current specs as well as how things are currently handled on the PT. As you can see there is just one point left for discussion.

The rest of Orion list:

Things that should generate a warning but not a HOLD:
- Small gaps
- Wrong KEYWORDS or CATEGORY
- Semantics issues like, this should be a subpart
- Anything that the PT Admin can fix (e.g. Header issues)
- Minor color problems
- Basically anything that can be fixed after initial release without breaking models that use the part.

is more a "political" thing. How do we handle the parts with the above errors that clearly need a (Needs work) in the description, when the original author has lost interest in the part. If it is on HOLD for more than three months, otherwise you would have to ping the PT admin to add the note to the description. I do not think that a simple comment addresses the above problems properly. Would there be a chance to add a WARNING to the PT that stands somehow between HOLD and Comment?

w.

[Chris Dee]

While in Billund we worked on Datheader's HOLD list an came up with this:



The process was working through the list and compare it with the current specs as well as how things are currently handled on the PT. As you can see there is just one point left for discussion.

The rest of Orion list:



is more a "political" thing. How do we handle the parts with the above errors that clearly need a (Needs work) in the description, when the original author has lost interest in the part. If it is on HOLD for more than three months, otherwise you would have to ping the PT admin to add the note to the description. I do not think that a simple comment addresses the above problems properly. Would there be a chance to add a WARNING to the PT that stands somehow between HOLD and Comment?

w.

How do you envisage a WARNING vote affecting the certification status? To override the reviewers existing CERT vote, like a Comment, or should it add another vote letter that nees to be cleared before the part can be released? The latter would be complex to implement but could potentially be rolled into a much-needed Parts Tracker redevelopment.

Alternatively, and much simpler to implement, could it work like a comment but automatically email the PT admin for atttention. In which case merely adding a 'Send comment to admin' checkbox to the review page would be even easier to implement and of more general applicability as it could be used on other vote types (e.g. HOLD votes to request deletions, CERT votes to warn of dependencies).

[Orion Pobursky]

How do you envisage a WARNING vote affecting the certification status? To override the reviewers existing CERT vote, like a Comment, or should it add another vote letter that nees to be cleared before the part can be released? The latter would be complex to implement but could potentially be rolled into a much-needed Parts Tracker redevelopment.

Alternatively, and much simpler to implement, could it work like a comment but automatically email the PT admin for atttention. In which case merely adding a 'Send comment to admin' checkbox to the review page   would be even easier to implement and of more general applicability as it could be used on other vote types (e.g. HOLD votes to request deletions, CERT votes to warn of dependencies).

I see WARNING as a comment on a HOLD, CERTIFY, or NOVOTE. These aren't necessarily errors but may be poor style, minor improvements that don't really need to be fixed, or stuff that the admin can fix.

[Willy Tschager]

How do you envisage a WARNING vote affecting the certification status? To override the reviewers existing CERT vote, like a Comment, or should it add another vote letter that nees to be cleared before the part can be released? The latter would be complex to implement but could potentially be rolled into a much-needed Parts Tracker redevelopment.

Alternatively, and much simpler to implement, could it work like a comment but automatically email the PT admin for atttention. In which case merely adding a 'Send comment to admin' checkbox to the review page   would be even easier to implement and of more general applicability as it could be used on other vote types (e.g. HOLD votes to request deletions, CERT votes to warn of dependencies).

I envision this a stronger comment. You could certify a part with minor flaws and add a WARNING in addition to make the PT admin aware that it might needs a (Needs Work) in description and comment if it hasn't already been added by the author just willing to add the (Needs Work) without fixing the error.

Looking at the parts you can find many with very minor flaws where the reviewer preferred comment on, but not certify. The WARNING should clear this hesitation.

w.

[Philippe Hurbain]

Looking at the parts you can find many with very minor flaws where the reviewer preferred comment on, but not certify.

Yes, considering the scarcity of reviewers, this kind of novote is actually close to a hold...

[Ulrich Röder]

.... for my part ... I look at the whole thing more like Magnus ..

... his "Swedish Hammer" ... met me here in my beginnings more often than I liked ... funny meant ...
but that was also a good intensive school ..

... it may be that this scares off many younger aspirants ... but those who develop beyond that ... will become good authors too ...

And yes ... a review needs a lot of time..to create parts, however, even more time ... accordingly.

"Quality over Quantity" ... also shapes the mindset of new generation generations of "LDrawer's" ... wants to be called ... and thus also the future of LDraw.

and right there ... we should ... set the lever ...

... well made and as simple as imaginable made tutorials ... summarized like a textbook ..... best still imaged .. and integrated links .... as a loadable PDF file ....

.... well and manageable structured .. and updated and supplemented again and again ..... to make it easier for the beginners.

The international popularity of Ldraw ... could be underlined by translations of these Tuitorials in various languages ...
..that would of course be a dynamic group work announced.

Willi has already done a lot in this respect on his homepage.

[Ulrich Röder]

I mostly agree that we are too strict overall... But another thing to factor in is the scarcity of reviewers. If I don't like something in a part I put a novote with comments, but there are so few reviewers, who could overwhelm my opinion, that a hold -  somehow forcing the author to react - would perhaps be better...

...I totally agree with your opinion

[Michael Heidemann]

While in Billund we worked on Datheader's HOLD list an came up with this:



The process was working through the list and compare it with the current specs as well as how things are currently handled on the PT. As you can see there is just one point left for discussion.

The rest of Orion list:



is more a "political" thing. How do we handle the parts with the above errors that clearly need a (Needs work) in the description, when the original author has lost interest in the part. If it is on HOLD for more than three months, otherwise you would have to ping the PT admin to add the note to the description. I do not think that a simple comment addresses the above problems properly. Would there be a chance to add a WARNING to the PT that stands somehow between HOLD and Comment?

w.

I do not fully understand this pdf file.
All the lines mention one error and/or warning that DatHeader will give to the user based on the specs. we made.
These errors/warnings are not related to the hold vote on the PT.
For some errors I was asked to mention that it shall be a hold vote. So I added in the error message the word "HOLD".
I will now remove the word "HOLD" on the lines where not a yellow HOLD is mentioned and add the word if in the file is a yellow HOLD.
I use the word "WARNING" instead of "ERROR" if DatHeader is unable to decide if the item is in this contect correct or not. The user has to decide it.
Sadly I have no idea what you have in mind if you write "Remove" in the pdf file. Shall I remove the check for this error?

cu
mikeheide

[Victor Di Rienzo]

.... for my part ... I look at the whole thing more like Magnus ..

... his "Swedish Hammer" ... met me here in my beginnings more often than I liked ... funny meant ...
but that was also a good intensive school ..

... it may be that this scares off many younger aspirants ... but those who develop beyond that ... will become good authors too ...

And yes ... a review needs a lot of time..to create parts, however, even more time ... accordingly.

"Quality over Quantity" ... also shapes the mindset of new generation generations of "LDrawer's" ... wants to be called ... and thus also the future of LDraw.

and right there ... we should ... set the lever ...

... well made and as simple as imaginable made tutorials ... summarized like a textbook ..... best still imaged .. and integrated links .... as a loadable PDF file ....

.... well and manageable structured .. and updated and supplemented again and again ..... to make it easier for the beginners.

The international popularity of Ldraw ... could be underlined by translations of these Tuitorials in various languages ...
..that would of course be a dynamic group work announced.

Willi has already done a lot in this respect on his homepage.

From my perspective point of view as newbie.


When you submit your first parts, it's intimidating the amount of observations that you get and things you need to correct, with out anything pointing out how to fix the issue. Its demoralising and you need to have lot of force to keep on trying to fix your file.


May be doing a faq with the typical (most often) errors and how to fix them will help to newbies like me.

[Willy Tschager]

For some errors I was asked to mention that it shall be a hold vote. So I added in the error message the word "HOLD".

And that is fine.

I will now remove the word "HOLD" on the lines where not a yellow HOLD is mentioned and add the word if in the file is a yellow HOLD.

Fine also with that.

I use the word "WARNING" instead of "ERROR" if DatHeader is unable to decide if the item is in this contect correct or not. The user has to decide it.

Yep.

Sadly I have no idea what you have in mind if you write "Remove" in the pdf file. Shall I remove the check for this error?

That was the idea. Take for example "Maybe wrong color for sticker used." A reviewer has to spot if the colors are right or wrong. If the aren't in the LDConfig it should be a direct color and it is up to the reviewer/author to decide if it was the right pick. Same for "Length of part description" since we completely dropped any length limits.

w.

[Magnus Forsberg]

Its demoralising and you need to have lot of force to keep on trying to fix your file.

As a reviewer and teacher I give critic, not to put you down. I want you to think, figure out what's wrong, and understand why. If you need more info to figure it out, just ask. And I want you to do that. It's my input, to becoming a better reviewer. 

May be doing a faq with the typical (most often) errors and how to fix them will help to newbies like me.

I agree, we should be better on documenting common errors, and hinting on how to fix them.

[Willy Tschager]

May be doing a faq with the typical (most often) errors and how to fix them will help to newbies like me.

Great idea! Go ahead with your questions and let us know what got you frustrated the most.

w.

[Victor Di Rienzo]

Great idea! Go ahead with your questions and let us know what got you frustrated the most.

w.

I think i have finally learn how to make the patterns and fulfill all the needs that are requested.

For me as there its a lot to read and to learn, the learning slope it is hi to get more people envolved . May be with video tutorials explaining all the proceess and adding them to a short guide to read may help too.

Also im thinking about cultural differences due most of people here are not native english speakes so reading and comprehension its more complex that a video to start the proccess, then if you are still interested all the documents available will make you undestand the underlying.

[Michael Heidemann]

And that is fine.


Fine also with that.


Yep.


That was the idea. Take for example "Maybe wrong color for sticker used." A reviewer has to spot if the colors are right or wrong. If the aren't in the LDConfig it should be a direct color and it is up to the reviewer/author to decide if it was the right pick. Same for "Length of part description" since we completely dropped any length limits.

w.

Ok, now I understand your idea when the reason of the checks are gone, no check is needed.

cu
mikeheide

[Orion Pobursky]

While in Billund we worked on Datheader's HOLD list an came up with this:



The process was working through the list and compare it with the current specs as well as how things are currently handled on the PT. As you can see there is just one point left for discussion.

The rest of Orion list:



is more a "political" thing. How do we handle the parts with the above errors that clearly need a (Needs work) in the description, when the original author has lost interest in the part. If it is on HOLD for more than three months, otherwise you would have to ping the PT admin to add the note to the description. I do not think that a simple comment addresses the above problems properly. Would there be a chance to add a WARNING to the PT that stands somehow between HOLD and Comment?

w.

I'd like to update this page:
https://www.ldraw.org/library/tracker/ref/l3pmsg/

With the above guidelines.

[Chris Dee]

I'd like to update this page:
https://www.ldraw.org/library/tracker/ref/l3pmsg/

With the above guidelines.

Go ahead. Could the non-BFC column be removed, as we expect everything tpo be BFC these days?

[Steffen]

yes please.

we have brought the BFC-problematic files to nearly 0 now.

just a small handful of "weird relicts" are remaining:
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptbfcstatus.cgi

I suggest to delete all of them from the PT:
- one is a "minifig torso + head" physical shortcut assembly which - if we would add these combinations to the library - would make the library size explode due to the possible combination
- the others are mockups which have no visual resemblence with the parts they mimick and are waiting unfinished for years now on the PT.

[Willy Tschager]

[*]"Wrong BFC command found." What is a wrong BFC command?

[*]
0 BFC CERTIFY INVERTNEXT

w.

[Michael Heidemann]

While in Billund we worked on Datheader's HOLD list an came up with this:



The process was working through the list and compare it with the current specs as well as how things are currently handled on the PT. As you can see there is just one point left for discussion.

The rest of Orion list:



is more a "political" thing. How do we handle the parts with the above errors that clearly need a (Needs work) in the description, when the original author has lost interest in the part. If it is on HOLD for more than three months, otherwise you would have to ping the PT admin to add the note to the description. I do not think that a simple comment addresses the above problems properly. Would there be a chance to add a WARNING to the PT that stands somehow between HOLD and Comment?

w.

At least I just uploaded the new version (3.0.23.0) of DATHeader for covering the changes for hold and warnings.

In case you will find still errors, please just send me a PM by email, because I not very often in the forum these days.

cu
Mikeheide

[Philippe Hurbain]

At least I just uploaded the new version (3.0.23.0) of DATHeader for covering the changes for hold and warnings.

Thanks Mike!