From 2e99d0cff72fd7b82706e95ba0a8c01bbccda534 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Edwards Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 11:27:43 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Changed the behavior of "extract" routine extFindNodes() to not check for abstract views to determine how to handle the substrate node. Running tests to check if this has any negative impact on the extraction of abstract views that do not specify substrate and well types. --- VERSION | 2 +- extract/ExtBasic.c | 8 +++++++- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/VERSION b/VERSION index 5b289975..ac6cd144 100644 --- a/VERSION +++ b/VERSION @@ -1 +1 @@ -8.3.268 +8.3.269 diff --git a/extract/ExtBasic.c b/extract/ExtBasic.c index 79383cc8..3b3e2481 100644 --- a/extract/ExtBasic.c +++ b/extract/ExtBasic.c @@ -3692,7 +3692,13 @@ extFindNodes(def, clipArea, subonly) temp_subsnode = (NodeRegion *)NULL; // Reset for new search isabstract = FALSE; - DBPropGet(def, "LEFview", &isabstract); + + // NOTE: Commented out 12/17/2022. This does not produce the intended + // result when an abstract view contains well and substrate types. + // Not sure if commenting it out produces the intended result when an + // abstract view does NOT contain will and substrate types, though. + /* DBPropGet(def, "LEFview", &isabstract); */ + if (!isabstract) { /* First pass: Find substrate. Collect all tiles belonging */