# astrimid - I'd like to extract the new proposed...

Channel: #contributor
Source: https://discord.com/channels/1233487248129921135/1527799567335161877
Started: 2026-07-17T22:10:02.574000+00:00
Last activity: 2026-07-23T21:31:21.430000+00:00

## astrimid — 2026-07-17T22:10:01.996000+00:00

I'd like to extract the new proposed API here from the previous thread on dual package mosfet chip representation.

The phase 1 of the proposal includes:

1. **New `ChipProps` extensions** to add:
   - `schDisplay?: "expanded" | "collapsed" | "hidden"`
   - Support for `<internalcircuit>` as a child
   - `pinMapping` functionality

2. **New `<internalcircuit>` component type** with its own props interface. This is added to `<chip>` but may potentially be extended to other components (maybe even user defined elements, like custom/simplifed schematic view for `<group>` or `<subcircuit>` while keeping pcb/bom representation intact)

3. **Reference designator composition logic** to combine chip name with child names (e.g., "Q203" + "A" = "Q203A")

4. **Pin mapping reconciliation** to validate that internal primitive terminals map correctly to footprint pins

Phase 2 makes the approach more generic, by introducing `schOnly` and `pcbOnly` attributes or some other way that extends beyond `<chip>`.

The `schOnly` and `pcbOnly` attributes already defined in `ConstrainedLayoutProps`, so `<constainedlayout pcbOnly><chip></constrainedlayout>` should already work, but `constainedlayout` element isn't registered in core and doesn't have any influence so causes compilation error.

## astrimid — 2026-07-17T22:17:57.801000+00:00

the naive representation would be:

 ```
<chip name="Q203" pcbOnly>
<mosfet name="Q203A" schOnly>
<mosfet name="Q203A" schOnly>
```

But that loses references between those, e.g. if I want to display physical pin numbering on logical schematic elements

## astrimid — 2026-07-17T22:21:24.702000+00:00

tagging <@1079361271687807026>  as he was the one proposing `<internalcircuit>`

## Mustafa7 — 2026-07-18T04:55:15.812000+00:00

We cannot make any decisions without seve. So cc <@757706909351411845>

## Seve — 2026-07-18T05:01:02.857000+00:00

Hello

## astrimid — 2026-07-23T09:53:55.954000+00:00

FWIW, `<schematicbox chipRef="Q1"/>` + `noSchematicRepresentation` for `<chip name="Q1">` seems to do the trick. But I still feel API could be more intuitive.

## Mustafa7 — 2026-07-23T10:04:09.736000+00:00

Yea we are thinking about this

## Mustafa7 — 2026-07-23T10:04:24.181000+00:00

We were talking about this yesterday

## Mustafa7 — 2026-07-23T13:44:59.649000+00:00

<@757706909351411845> 
```<board width="40mm" height="25mm">
  <chip
    name="Q1"
    footprint="soic8"
    pinLabels={{
      pin1: "G1",
      pin2: "S1",
      pin3: "G2",
      pin4: "S2",
      pin5: "D2",
      pin6: "D2",
      pin7: "D1",
      pin8: "D1",
    }}
    internallyConnectedPins={[
      ["pin5", "pin6"],
      ["pin7", "pin8"],
    ]}
    noSchematicRepresentation
  />

  <schematicbox
    name="A"
    chipRef=".Q1"
    width={2}
    height={1.5}
    pinLabels={{
      pin1: "G",
      pin2: "S",
      pin3: "D",
    }}
    connections={{
      pin1: "Q1.pin1",
      pin2: "Q1.pin2",
      pin3: "Q1.pin7",
    }}
    schPinArrangement={{
      leftSide: ["pin1"],
      rightSide: ["pin3"],
      bottomSide: ["pin2"],
    }}
    schX={-3}
  />

  <schematicbox
    name="B"
    chipRef=".Q1"
    width={2}
    height={1.5}
    pinLabels={{
      pin1: "G",
      pin2: "S",
      pin3: "D",
    }}
    connections={{
      pin1: "Q1.pin3",
      pin2: "Q1.pin4",
      pin3: "Q1.pin5",
    }}
    schPinArrangement={{
      leftSide: ["pin1"],
      rightSide: ["pin3"],
      bottomSide: ["pin2"],
    }}
    schX={3}
  />

  <resistor name="R1" resistance="10k" footprint="0402" />
  <resistor name="R2" resistance="10k" footprint="0402" />

  <trace from=".R1 > .pin1" to="net.INPUT_A" />
  <trace from=".R1 > .pin2" to=".Q1 > .pin1" />

  <trace from=".R2 > .pin1" to="net.INPUT_B" />
  <trace from=".R2 > .pin2" to=".Q1 > .pin3" />

  <trace from=".Q1 > .pin2" to="net.GND" />
  <trace from=".Q1 > .pin4" to="net.GND" />

  <trace from=".Q1 > .pin7" to="net.OUTPUT_A" />
  <trace from=".Q1 > .pin5" to="net.OUTPUT_B" />
</board>```
Hows this tsx instead of internalcircuit wrapper? One issue with schematicbox is that you will lose sch symbols, that is fine right?

## Mustafa7 — 2026-07-23T14:03:01.123000+00:00

should i revert what we did till now for internalcircuit?(its almost done, just the displayName for internal components has to be set in core)

## Seve — 2026-07-23T16:54:39.240000+00:00

<@1079361271687807026> you should do `<schematicsymbol chipRef=".U1" symbolName="mosfet..." />` for the mosfet symbols i think

## Seve — 2026-07-23T16:55:41.850000+00:00

<@1079361271687807026> yea i mean i think if we do the revert in one big PR- it might be easier for us to come back to it later (especially if the title is pretty explicit)

## Seve — 2026-07-23T16:56:19.707000+00:00

i think we'll maybe bring back internalcircuit when we do advance spice modeling (maybe- there are also other ways to do that)

## Mustafa7 — 2026-07-23T16:59:59.921000+00:00

So should I revert it and then we should implement the above style with schematicsymbol?

## Seve — 2026-07-23T17:00:38.622000+00:00

yea i agree with that

## astrimid — 2026-07-23T19:03:42.085000+00:00

the current blocker is `noschemaicrepresentation` leaves orphan traces behind. Does using `<schematicbox`  approach mean the mosfet flipping logic should be reimplemented?

## astrimid — 2026-07-23T19:07:23.398000+00:00

https://tscircuit.com/editor?&snippet_type=board#data:application/gzip;base64,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
Attachment: image.png — https://community.tscircuit.com/media/1529927930539675779

## astrimid — 2026-07-23T19:11:39.625000+00:00

Also, using `Q` name for `<chip` as it's a mosfet creates a warning that I should name it `U`. Ignorable but annoying, leaky abstraction

## astrimid — 2026-07-23T19:12:04.992000+00:00

I guess, it also means I can't use mosfet simulations either, as it's opaque chip

## astrimid — 2026-07-23T19:13:03.377000+00:00

OTOH, separating schematic box out of `chip` means we can compose  new functionality on top of  `<schematicbox` as it's a cleaner representation of underlying `circuitjson` concept?

## astrimid — 2026-07-23T19:16:29.336000+00:00

I quess now we need some `<electicalbox` counterpart that could cleanly represent any of mosfet, resistor, capacitor, diode, etc? and possibly extend `<chip` and `chipRef` into any pcb component that might have different schematic representation, or even multiple pcb components or subcircuit mapped to a single `schematicbox`?

## astrimid — 2026-07-23T19:18:49.656000+00:00

or maybe the `<schematicbox`  should have some internal model projerty that represents `<mosfet` and display it both as a symbol on schematic and simulated on electrical model, but doesn't have any schematic nor pcb nor bom domain.

## astrimid — 2026-07-23T19:29:53.052000+00:00

I'm still dreaming of some `<circuitjson>` component or API, from which I could layer my own primitive components and props when tscirciuit falls short. But maybe even `circuitjson` has its limitations?

## Seve — 2026-07-23T19:43:39.334000+00:00

<subcircuit circuitJson={circuitJson} /> should work for that

## Seve — 2026-07-23T19:43:45.613000+00:00

subcircuit also has showAsSchematicBox

## astrimid — 2026-07-23T20:42:19.374000+00:00

> <subcircuit circuitJson={circuitJson} /> should work for that

It has some key limitation: it's an isolated namespace

## Seve — 2026-07-23T21:31:11.029000+00:00

right yea

## Seve — 2026-07-23T21:31:21.430000+00:00

you can do `exposedNets` etc. to explicitly expose stuff tho