To support obtuse x_angle a refactoring had to be made, which helped
improve the general code for slab addition.
This is challenging because there are a few features that interact
with each other to create slabs, like `depth`, `direction_sense`, `offset`
and `x_angle`. In addition, these interactions can happen in different parts
of the code. This refactor improves the coherence between those different parts.
Files changed:
- `api/geometry/add_slab_representation.py`
- `model/slab.py` - inside the function `change_thickness()`
File to be changed in a following commit:
- `model/wall.py` - inside the operator `ChangeExtrusionXAngle` - To-do
1) `do_not_delete` performs best when it's set
2) also_consider when `element` related elements go first, so there will be no need to traverse all other elements to see if they cover `element`'s inverses.
check schema version instead of accessing attribute directly (hasattr under the hood is just doing getattr and checking whether it returns AttributeError), so one less IFC access
Similar thing with element.Item to access IFC just once.
I guess this is a Bonsaism but it makes sense as named profiles are
significant, and it isn't the first time materials and profiles have
been treated as "rooted" in a sense. It's also annoying to keep on
having my profile library drop off when I'm just switching profiles.
If you move a wall, and that wall has features (e.g. openings), it's
desirable to also move those openings (because they are invisible). This
is a special exception to `should_transform_children` because the
definition of the feature (opening) is inherently tied to the parent
(wall).
What wasn't considered is that this would typically then also move
subchildren of the features (e.g. fills like doors). I'm surprised
nobody caught this earlier.
I did also consider another approach where if you move a wall, it moves
all unfilled openings, and if you move a door which fills a opening, it
moves the opening too. Intuitively it sounds nice, but it doesn't work
because:
- Openings can have multiple fillings. If you move all fillings, they
all fight to move the openings.
- All logic about children goes one way: a placement may have child
placements relative to it. This breaks the convention (if moving a door
instead moves its opening) which can make brains explode.
- It starts to conflate rules about relative / referenced placements
with spatial decomposition. We assume all IFCs are valid and follows the
convention of relative placement but we cannot guarantee this. This also
leads to brain explosion.
Dion Moult