Managed library import failed

[cyberreefguru]

I started getting this error today. None of the articles on why it's happening seem to apply - this is an existing managed library that I added one component and a couple footprints. 

Further, the link to "contact technical support" returns a 404 -- that's really awesome; nice job.

Suggestions?

-Tom

[jorge_garcia]

Hello @cyberreefguru,

I hope you're doing well. I've reached out to the developers with this thread. Thank you for the image that will help them see if there's anything specifically wrong with your library or if there is a more generalized issue.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.

Best Regards,

[jorge_garcia]

Hi @cyberreefguru,

The developers have looked into it and it seems this is mostly a logo library. This causes the library to be big and it's timing out.

The suggestion for now is to break this library up into smaller libraries. 

The developers will be looking at it to see how they can improve the performance.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.

Best Regards,

[cyberreefguru]

Hi Jorge - yes, it is entirely a logo library 🙂 It was separated to make it more manageable.

So you are saying it will never work properly without making it smaller? How do I see the size and judge what is "big" vs "ok"?

Thanks

-Tom

[jorge_garcia]

Hi @cyberreefguru,

Currently the way logo are stored is as array of rectangles sometimes thousands of them, so it's easy for the library to bloat. 

I don't know how many MBs your library might be, but around 1.5-2MB I start to get nervous.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.

Best Regards,

[cyberreefguru]

Good evening @jorge_garcia -- I'm following up on this issue. I've broken up my libraries and I was able to get them to upload. That said, my original library was 1.6MB, which is puny by today's standards. The new libraries were 874K and 614K respectively. I had to upload the smaller of the libraries twice -- the first time failed. More importantly, because of the library change, I had to edit every design file and manually replace all the components. For whatever reason, "Swap Library" never seems to work - even if it does find a match, it won't let me swap because it doesn't have every component matched (or some other reason). Utterly useless.

A couple things that would really help:

1 - multi-select to delete -- literally took me 30 mins to delete all the individual components, packages, symbols, and models when I broke them apart.

2 - cascading delete - when I delete the component, just delete all the packages, footprints, and symbols -- or ask me if I want that. Imagine my surprise when I deleted the component and the size of the library never changed because all the 'bulk' was in the footprints.

3 - fix swap library - seems like it should work, but it doesn't even when all the components are in the new library essentially unchanged (like when you simply rename the library). In this case, I had to open every design, find all the components from the old library, replace it with the components from the new library. It's like 50 clicks for each component. Colossal pain in the *ss.

4 - there's no way to replace a footprint in the PCB editor when there is no associated component. I had to delete the footprint and manually add it back in the new library. That seems like a defect to me.

5 - when you copy a library, it really should break the link to library IO. Once again, imagine my surprise when I created two new libraries, edited them (the aforementioned 30 minutes) only to have the second library overwrite the first library in library.io.  Then when I opened the first library, it said I had pending changes so I blindly merged, blowing away everything in the first library. Super annoying.

6 - When there are changes in the library.io version, please, please, please add the ability to keep the local copy and overwrite the library.io copy. Right now the only options are to overwrite the local copy or merge the changes, which is effectively the *same* *thing* in my case - merging the changes overwrites the local copy. Once again, imagine my surprise.

7 - look, I've said it before and I'm saying it again -- it just doesn't have to be this hard. It just doesn't. Silently keep the fusion team libraries up to date in library.io, make the version numbers the same, and only prompt when something changes on the web for some reason. This whole linking business has to go. It might be an interim step, but it's nuts.

Thanks for listening.

-Tom

[jorge_garcia]

Hi @cyberreefguru,

I hope you're doing well. Let's see if I can address these point in order.

1 and 2 I think we can lump together as a request for easier methods to delete the content of the libraries. I agree with this I'll add it to the existing tickets for library authoring improvements. For large libraries this would be especially useful good call.

3 is hard. Swap library files because it expects the library you are swapping for to be exactly the same as the one originally referenced in the design. This function is really used to change the design reference from library.io to a Fusion team lib. In your use case it can't work, because even though it contains many of the same parts it's not identical to the original large library so it fails. I think ideally the solution here is to not have to break the libraries down.

4- Is this with a logo or something like that? Because of the requirements for design consistency generally a footprint needs to be part of a component for the schematic to update as well when there is a change. The only exception to this are things like Logos that don't have connecting points in the footprint. If it is a logo then replace should have worked.

5- I agree with this, there is a ticket open again part of library authoring for having clean breaks from library.io when you make a copy. Currently all links are preserved when you make a copy of the library and you have to manually break the links not just from the library but if you want full isolation you have to do it from the 3D models too.

6- This falls apart I think because of the need to split up the libraries as well.

7- It is an interim step but yeah, I know it makes things difficult.

I'm going to share your comments with the lib team. Thanks for taking the time to be so detailed.

Best Regards,

[cyberreefguru]

Thanks @jorge_garcia.

For #3 - Hmmm, even when all I've done is rename the library Swap does not work - literally every aspect of the library is the same except the name -- something has to be broken here. If "exactly the same" means even the name, well then, I don't know what "swap" means 😉

For #4- I was lazy when I created the footprint and didn't bother creating a component or model since you can add a footprint-only in the PCB editor. So when I moved things around, I had to delete all the footprints and re-add them rather than "replacing" them.

For #6 - here's the thing -- I simply don't care if things fall apart in some cases. I literally want my local copy to overwrite the web copy -- I'm accepting that risk and consequences. Probably a lot less important if #5 is implemented. 

Need to add #8 - there is no way to change the name of a library in library.io. Or at least there doesn't seem to be a way. I really recommend your permalink not have the name in it and just use the GUID if that is the rationale for not letting people change the name.

Many thanks!

-Tom

[jorge_garcia]

Hi @cyberreefguru,

I hope you're doing well. So I want to clarify #3 a little more, the new smaller libraries are not exactly the same as the original lib which was the sum of the two libs you eventually split it into. So the libraries individually are not equivalent to the one your trying to replace. That's why the swap doesn't work.

The intent of the command is to help users consolidate when they have the same libs in different pieces of infrastructure (library.io, fusion team, or local library).

Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.

Best Regards,

[Taylor.Chris]

Many of these issues are being addressed currently or will be addressed soon.  We appreciate the feedback.    
To clarify on swap, you don't need the libraries to be identical, but at the moment you do need the target to contain all the components which is certainly a problem for this workflow. 
Partial library swap and better swapping UI are on our roadmap. 
Fixing the way "linking" works is a top priority for us.
Fixing the pushing to library.io so that we can easily handle these sorts of libraries is also on the roadmap (I think its logos that cause our conversions extra trouble). 

For 5- I agree this should be done for you.  Just so you know you can break the link manually in the toolbar.

One question, do you need to be using library.io?  Can you just directly use Fusion libraries instead?

In the future the system will push you to using Fusion libraries in designs instead of library.io libraries.  Library.io will still be useful for moving data around and keeping libraries in sync across teams, but designs will need to reference Fusion libraries that live in the same team.   This will also come with UI to help you migrate libraries into Fusion and migrate designs to point to Fusion libraries.

[cyberreefguru]

Hi Chris -- AFAIK, I have no need for library.io -- it was sort of force on me about a year or two ago. Since then I've been trying to make sense of it. Even if I had a massive team, I'm not sure I need something like library.io - I mean you can't do too much in there except use it as a GitHub sort of storage, without lightweight branches. It seems more like CVS, SVN, or god help us, Perforce. 

It would be really wonderful if Autodesk offered a suite of certified libraries with a host of known-good components that I can draw from. Eagle sort of had that, but many components were far from "known-good", and some were just completely broken (which you only discovered after a full turn of your PCB!).

I thought that's what library.io was intended to be, and seems like you are heading in that direction with Fusion Libraries, but it also seems like you are going down the road of proprietary libraries or some sort of closed ecosphere of libraries -- pure speculation on my part, but there are clear signs in my mind. That's no bueno.

I can't believe we've been doing PCB design and manufacturing for over 70 years and we still don't have a single accepted format for component libraries and footprints. Imagine what 3D printing would be like without STL?

Anyway, I'm happy to help if you want.

-Tom

[Taylor.Chris]

You are correct about public data, Library.io will continue to host our public libraries provided by Autodesk, and public third-party libraries.   These do exist today and improving their quality is an ongoing effort.  Your private personal data can just live in Fusion unless you have more advanced needs like keeping libraries synchronized across teams.