Review fixes for the Plan Cutting batch and dialog:
- A plate whose clean part material overlaps, or cannot be checked
for overlap, is no longer ready, whatever its route. The batch
captures each plate's material with PlateOverlapAnalyzer on the
owner thread, analyzes it on the worker, and names both parts.
Before, two overlapping squares were Ready and Apply regenerated
them (plan section 4.2: overlap warnings are not waived).
- BuildPreview returns null for a refused plate, whose program graphs
may be unsafe to copy (an unsupported instruction's Clone ran, and a
cyclic subprogram overflowed the stack), and for a plate that
changed after planning, which drew the replayed program at the live
pose. The dialog then shows no preview and says why.
- The dialog plans with its own copy of the caller's settings, shows
a failure message if a plan cannot be presented, and has a worker
seam so the close-while-planning test holds the worker instead of
racing a slow search. Form tests now observe the planning task.
CuttingPlanBatch captures every scoped plate on the owner thread with
an owned copy of the confirmed cutting parameters, plans them on a
worker with per-plate progress and cancellation, and returns a
proposal that applies all or nothing through CuttingPlanService.Apply.
A free-order search that ends NoSolutionWithinBudget is retried once
with the current part order, captured up front so the worker never
reads live plates; the proposal reports that the order was kept. A
kept order gets 400 expansions per part (at least 20000), since it
still searches contour order and entries.
Only after Apply succeeds does each plate keep its own copy of the
settings. The proposal builds detached preview plates (quantity zero)
and describes each plate's status and findings with part numbers.
The readiness filter rebuilt the finished-part list for every candidate.
Build one set per expanded node; the candidates and their order are
unchanged.
A CuttingPlanRequest constructor overload taking a Plate made the existing
detached call new CuttingPlanRequest(null) ambiguous (CS0121). Plate scope
is now requested with CuttingPlanRequest.ForPlate, and the result summary
describes dependencies and Apply as they now behave.
The containment prefilter used the inner part's whole clean-program
bounds, which include rapid endpoints and scribe marks. A remote rapid or
mark could push those bounds outside the host and drop a genuine
inner-before-host prerequisite. Candidate pairs now use the material
extent only (cut and display motions); containment is still proven on
native material.
The cutting planner now accepts cutoffs on plate-scoped requests and
plans whole-part prerequisites captured from owned values:
- A cutoff precedes every part its nominal span crosses, using the same
rule and drawing-reference matching as automatic sequencing; a cutoff
without a definition precedes every part. Cutoffs stay fixed programs,
need no lead-in and never become rapid obstacles; rapids into and out
of them are still checked.
- A part proven, on native clean material, to lie inside a cutout of
another part precedes that host. Touching or crossing boundaries are
ambiguous and refuse; a part in a concave pocket has no dependency.
- Both searches only expand ready parts, a preserved order that breaks a
prerequisite is a constraint conflict, and final replay rechecks the
captured prerequisites instead of trusting the search.
Plate-scoped cutting plan requests now record the plate's exact state at
capture, and CuttingPlanService.Apply installs Ready, replayed proposals
for a whole scope at once:
- Any change after capture (order, pose bits, program reference or
in-place content, drawing program, lock/lead-in flags, settings,
quantity, size, quadrant or cutoff definitions) returns Stale with
nothing changed.
- Order changes without PartAdded/PartRemoved, so drawing quantities and
sentinel plates are untouched; ObservableList.Reorder exposes the same
operation and Plate.PartsReordered is raised once per changed plate.
- Regenerated parts receive owned copies of the replayed program and of
the settings captured with the request; fixed programs stay in place.
- An install failure restores every plate exactly; an observer failure
after publication is reported as a refresh error, not a rollback.
aj