Rhino brep trimmed

[chenkasirer]

• RhinoBrep.trimmed returns now a single brep as a result instead of a list of breps. If no result available a BrepTrimmingError is raised.

This fixes a discrepancy between the RhinoBrep implementation and the documented behavior.

What type of change is this?

• Bug fix in a backwards-compatible manner.
• 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).
• I ran all tests on my computer and it's all green (i.e. invoke test).
• 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.datastructures.Mesh.
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.
• I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)

[jf---]

@gonzalocasas || @tomvanmele this looks good, only thing that comes to mind if handling precision is following the new compas.precision idiom?

The description is not super clear -- @chenkasirer this is fusing a nr of faces, right?
In that sense the method is a little tricky to understand, and if topological changes (if faces are fused) are invoked, a little more on the intent of the method is needed I think. fused faces when invoking trimmed is semantically not crystal clear I feel.

[tomvanmele]

LGTM

[tomvanmele]

actually, sorry i take that back, tolerance handling is indeed wrong...

missed a bug

[tomvanmele]

in the signature, tolerance=None. then tolerance = tolerance or TOL.absolute, with at the top (if it is not already there) from compas.tolerance import TOL

[tomvanmele]

and then, finally, capped = result.CapPlanarHoles(tolerance)

[chenkasirer]

@tomvanmele done.
Just curious why not tolerance=TOL.absolute in signature? as it returns a float (immutable)

[tomvanmele]

that would have also been an option indeed. as long as it is not a hard coded tolerance value...

[tomvanmele]

use of tolerance should be updated

[tomvanmele]

@chenkasirer ping

[chenkasirer]

@gonzalocasas || @tomvanmele this looks good, only thing that comes to mind if handling precision is following the new compas.precision idiom?

The description is not super clear -- @chenkasirer this is fusing a nr of faces, right? In that sense the method is a little tricky to understand, and if topological changes (if faces are fused) are invoked, a little more on the intent of the method is needed I think. fused faces when invoking trimmed is semantically not crystal clear I feel.

Hey @jf--- !
Not sure what you mean by fusing faces here, could you explain? Brep.trimmed just returns all the results of a trim operation. trimming with plane would then typically result in two breps (one on each side of the plane), but maybe I'm missing something.

[tomvanmele]

LGTM