User report 2026-08-23, and it is right: "you have renamed the feature extrusion,
not the body. i clicked rename on the body feature tree and the feature extrude
changed name. this means that you consider the extrusion = the body. this is very
far from truth as a body can contain several extrusions."
That is exactly what the previous commit did. It resolved a selected body to
CadBody::source_feature and renamed THAT feature, on the reasoning that a body has
no name of its own. The reasoning described an implementation detail — CadBody::
name is derived and restamped on every recompute — and mistook it for the user's
model. An Extrude, a Cut and a Fillet all land on the same body: the maker is one
operation in its history, and renaming it renames the wrong object.
A body now has a name of its own. CadBody::user_name, set only by a rename, is:
- carried across recompute() by body index, next to the per-body colour override
and under the same index contract the GUI already relies on for visibility and
Move — without which a name would survive exactly until the next feature;
- written into the recipe, because bodies are recomputed and never serialised, so
a name has nowhere else to live and would otherwise vanish on reopen;
- shown on the Bodies row ahead of the derived maker name, as "Body N — name",
with the number still leading because every status line, the interference
report and the mate errors identify a body that way.
The recipe block is APPENDED after the variables block rather than given a version
bump. A build that predates it reads features and variables, returns, and never
looks at the trailing bytes — so yesterday's projects open here and today's
projects still open there. A bump would have cost every project written today its
readability by the previous build, for one optional field.
Renaming a FEATURE is unchanged. The feature tree renames features; the Bodies
list renames bodies; neither reaches into the other.
WHAT THIS COST, and why it is written down. Getting here took two wrong turns
inside one fix, both mine:
1. UnselectAll() -> Unselect(). Both trees are wxTR_SINGLE, where UnselectAll()
— the MULTI-selection call — does nothing. That was the one-word reason the
rename had been vetoed everywhere (BEGIN_LABEL_EDIT refuses while
tree_body_selection() >= 0). Fixing it turned a pair of harmless no-ops into
a real loop: the two lists clear each other so "the target" is unambiguous,
so clicking a body row ran apply_body_row -> m_tree->Unselect() -> the feature
tree's SEL_CHANGED -> m_parts->Unselect(), which cleared the row just clicked.
The handler now clears the other list only when it actually holds a selection.
2. Trusting a screenshot taken after a polluted run. A leftover Rib card had
shifted the whole panel, so a click measured against it landed nowhere near
the row. Relaunch, then measure.
VERIFIED, on the rig and in the kernel:
body renamed ('Extrude', user_name=False) -> ('Bracket', user_name=True)
features untouched ['Sketch', 'Extrude'] before and after
survives a recompute add a Hole to the same body: features become
['Sketch', 'Extrude', 'Hole'], body stays 'Bracket'
survives the recipe serialize -> deserialize -> 'Bracket'
New kernel test "a body carries its own name, through recompute and the recipe"
pins all three properties; the suite is 189 cases / 2547 assertions.
Gate green: ALL LADDERS HELD — offer table matches the atlas, kernel suite,
engine rungs 1-8, 977-sheet corpus + the heaviest sheets, gesture ladder 98/98,
offer ladder 108/108.
and a ladder that draws with the mouse
Three commits carried across (snaporca 4ffd60eacb, 421055c2ec, b71216ce0b):
1. A design made only of sketches must survive being saved. CadDocument::recompute
returned false with "no solid-producing features" for a document that has no
solid, and two callers read that as "unusable": the GUI syncs the 3MF recipe
only after a successful recompute, so a sketch-only design was saved with no
recipe at all, and deserialize_recipe ends with `return recompute()`, so even a
project that carried one was refused on load. Having nothing to build is now a
success; a feature that MEANT to build a solid and produced none still fails.
DesignPanel::refresh_tree syncs the recipe too, for the paths that call
m_doc.recompute() directly.
2. Scripted geometry arrives exact. The Horizontal/Vertical inference window and
the endpoint weld window both close to zero for add_entities_scripted; void
attribution probes from a point strictly inside each loop instead of from its
first vertex. Corpus rung 39 graded / 39 fully clean, was 35 with 6 failures.
3. scripts/gui-ladder.py — 17 rungs, 84 properties, all driven by synthetic clicks
and typed values rather than through the socket.
Parity 17 identical / 8 diverging as expected. Kernel suite here: 188 cases /
2532 assertions.
snaporca-mtav, snaporca-8xg1, snaporca-5hvl, snaporca-730j
Review request on PR #15238: "Place CAD-related files (e.g. CadDocument/
GeometryEngine) into a separate folder."
src/libslic3r/CAD/ the kernel — CadDocument, GeometryEngine, the four
Sketch* units, SketchSolver, ThreadStandards
src/slic3r/GUI/CAD/ the tab — DesignPanel, DesignCanvas, DesignSketchTool,
SketchInlineEditor, McpControl, generated DesignOffer
Pure relocation: no line of logic changes. Two include rewrites follow from it —
files that moved re-spell their own neighbours against src/ (already on the
include path), and files that did not move pick up the new folder. docs and
docs/ux/mockups/gen_offer_table.py follow the same paths.
Verified: libslic3r, libslic3r_gui and libslic3r_tests all build, CAD suite green
at 2518 assertions in 194 test cases, and the sibling fork builds identically —
17 shared sources still byte-identical, 8 diverging by their expected counts.
Tommaso Bianchi