Fix schpinspacing width

[RaghavArora14]

/Fixes #1576
/claim #1576

Reproduction

Before Fix:


Small spacing - width: 0.4 height: 1
Large spacing - width: 1.6 height: 4
Test FAILED

Fix

Changed width/height calculation in getAllDimensionsForSchematicBox.ts to use fixed MIN_PADDING (0.4) instead of schPinSpacing * 2.
After Fix:

Result

After fix, box width stays constant at 0.4 regardless of schPinSpacing value.

Small spacing - width: 0.4 height: 1
Large spacing - width: 0.4 height: 2.8
Tests PASS

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
tscircuit-core-benchmarks	Ready	Preview	Comment	Oct 26, 2025 4:56pm

[RaghavArora14]

hey @seveibar can i get a review on this, i reproduced this issue and then tried the fix. Please let me know if this is correct

[seveibar]

no point in requesting a review with failing tests

also rename your test appropriately for the directory you put it in

[seveibar]

also you need snapshot tests

[seveibar]

@RaghavArora14 request your assigned maintainer for review. Work with them directly, join discord if needed https://tscircuit.com/join

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BU96V97WA6Xv9WyjIyN1qmdWvoJgLEir8mdqz--4B_o/edit?usp=sharing

[RaghavArora14]

okay thanks, will ask the maintainer soon after fixing this up

[RaghavArora14]

hey @ShiboSoftwareDev can i get a review on this please, all the tests are now passing, have reproduced the issue and added test snapshots too

[RaghavArora14]

also had created a seperate branch to reproduce the issue before fixing it and that was causing some issues with the format check so had to force push sorry if that causes any issues, lmk how i can fix those

[ShiboSoftwareDev]

combine your repros into a single circuit in a single file

[RaghavArora14]

okay resolved the comments issue, will add them into a single repro file and ask for a review is that cool?

[seveibar]

Why is repro3 messed up?

[RaghavArora14]

Why is repro3 messed up?

Because the fix changed how box dimensions are calculated. The repro3 test uses schPinSpacing={0.75} which is larger than the default 0.2.
Before the fix: box width was calculated as sideLengths + schPinSpacing * 2, so with 0.75 it was larger.
After the fix: box width uses fixed DEFAULT_SCHEMATIC_BOX_PADDING_MM = 0.4 (which is 0.2 * 2), so boxes with larger schPinSpacing became smaller.
This changed the visual layout in the snapshot, so we had to update it. The same happened with:
example7-voltage-regulator-with-connections (uses schPinSpacing={0.75})
chip-override-footprint-ports-when-schPortArrangement (affected by the change)

[seveibar]

i think repro03 is showing that we introduced a bug no? Shouldn't it have a wider box because it has pin labels?

[RaghavArora14]

i think repro03 is showing that we introduced a bug no? Shouldn't it have a wider box because it has pin labels?

Repro3 doesn't have pin labels, so the box width is correctly calculated based on pin positions (sideLengths) + fixed padding. The box is narrower now because the old code incorrectly added schPinSpacing to the padding - the fix ensures padding stays constant at 0.4mm regardless of pin spacing.

If users need a wider box, they can explicitly set schWidth prop or the code already handles pin labels by adding extra width when labels are present

[RaghavArora14]

in repro3 i could add schWidth={3} or whatever width looks good. This overrides the automatic calculation and gives full control over the box size.

Alternatively, i could increase DEFAULT_SCHEMATIC_BOX_PADDING_MM from 0.4 to something like 0.6 or 0.8 if you think the boxes look too cramped overall - that would affect all components without explicit widths.

[seveibar]

you broke more snapshots, your logic doesn't account for pin labels

[RaghavArora14]

you broke more snapshots, your logic doesn't account for pin labels

The minimum width check should only apply when there are NO pin labels (or when the calculated width from labels is less than the minimum). The current logic applies the minimum width even when pin labels already calculated a larger width

what about this?

[RaghavArora14]

you broke more snapshots, your logic doesn't account for pin labels

The minimum width check should only apply when there are NO pin labels (or when the calculated width from labels is less than the minimum). The current logic applies the minimum width even when pin labels already calculated a larger width what about this?

this didnt fix the issue either, i am not so sure what the issue might be and how i can account for pin labels
if you have any recommendations please tell me

[RaghavArora14]

The core issue was that the original code used params.schPinSpacing * 2 for padding, which made box dimensions depend on schPinSpacing (the bug). My fix changed this to a fixed DEFAULT_SCHEMATIC_BOX_PADDING_MM (0.4mm), which correctly makes padding independent of schPinSpacing. However, this created a problem: repro3 has schPinSpacing={0.75}, so it previously got 1.5mm of padding and now only gets 0.4mm, making it appear too narrow.

I tried several approaches to fix this: (1) adding a minimum width check of 1.0mm for chips with left/right pins - this broke 28 snapshots because it overrode the pin label width calculations, (2) calculating default label width based on pin numbers when no explicit pinLabels are defined - this broke the original behavior where chips without pinLabels got no extra width, and (3) increasing DEFAULT_SCHEMATIC_BOX_PADDING_MM from 0.4mm to 0.6mm - this broke 45 tests.

The final trade-off is: the bug is fixed (schPinSpacing no longer affects dimensions), but chips with large schPinSpacing values like repro3 will appear narrower than before since they no longer get proportionally larger padding. What do you think - should we accept this trade-off, or do you have any suggestions on how to provide adequate width for repro3 without breaking the other tests?