Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Assembly from Surface with components #236

Merged
merged 36 commits into from
Jul 9, 2024
Merged

Assembly from Surface with components #236

merged 36 commits into from
Jul 9, 2024

Conversation

obucklin
Copy link
Contributor

@obucklin obucklin commented Feb 29, 2024

This adds the new funtionality to create a Timber Assembly from a planar rhino surface. Follows the US style for light framing.

  • Moved the workflow module from compas_timber.ghpython to a new compas_timber.design package so that joint rules etc. can be used outside Rhino.

What type of change is this?

  • Bug fix in a backwards-compatible manner.
  • [x] New feature in a backwards-compatible manner.
  • Breaking change: bug fix or new feature that involve incompatible API changes.
  • Other (e.g. doc update, configuration, etc)

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your code.

  • I added a line to the CHANGELOG.md file in the Unreleased section under the most fitting heading (e.g. Added, Changed, Removed).
  • [ x ] I ran all tests on my computer and it's all green (i.e. invoke test).
  • [ x] I ran lint on my computer and there are no errors (i.e. invoke lint).
  • I added new functions/classes and made them available on a second-level import, e.g. compas_timber.datastructures.Beam.
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.
  • [ x ] I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)

@chenkasirer chenkasirer mentioned this pull request Mar 4, 2024
@chenkasirer
Copy link
Contributor

I think this is super cool.

  • We could look at this like a reference implementation and think about how this can be turned into a nice API for other people (companies) to define their own logic by which an assembly is made from a surface, without them having to meddle in the inner workings of the library. Another layer of abstraction essentially, somewhere between the GH logic and the core library.
  • For now maybe we can move it to a new package factories or something like that..
  • we should sit together and try to figure out:
    • what are the inputs and outputs (e.g. geometry -> rules)
    • what can be made into a re-usable component

Copy link
Contributor Author

@obucklin obucklin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I approve. but I cant approve my own PR, even if you have modified

Copy link
Contributor

@chenkasirer chenkasirer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTO!
(Looks Good to @obucklin ;)

@obucklin obucklin merged commit c583bc0 into main Jul 9, 2024
14 checks passed
@obucklin obucklin deleted the assembly_from_surface branch July 9, 2024 14:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants