new output : fields_check

[Strooom]

I am using KiBot in a CI/CD github workflow, and it's really good so I am applying it to all my designs.
One thing is still missing however : I'd like some automated check and/or cleanup of the custom fields used in the project, its symbols and its footprints.

Often a needed symbol and/or footprint is not present in the standard KiCAD libraries but it is made available by its vendor or by sites such as SnapEDA, SamacSys, etc. These symbols and footprints however contain custom fields of metadata which are polluting the design and they may show up in BOM exports etc.

So in general I will clean an imported symbol / footprint before using it in a design, aligning all metadata field names to my standard and removing excess fields. But of course errors can and do occur, and so I'd like to automate this check with KiBOT

output field_check
The user provides a list of 'allowed' field names in the YAML file, and KiBOT writes a report file with all symbols and footprints that have fields outside this list., eg. symbol 'CP2102N' has field 'height'
User could also provide a list of 'mandatory' field names and KiBOT writes in the report for which symbols / footprints these fields are missing or empty, eg. symbol 'CP2102N' has empty field 'Datasheet'
Ideally, the lists of allowed and mandatory fields could be different for symbols, footprints, the schematic and the layout

This will help a lot with the cleanup of your design's metadata.
If this would be possible with the current features of KiBOT, I would be pleased to learn how to do that.

[set-soft]

The check_fields preflight can do the mandatory check.

For the extra fields we could add some extra rule to catch fields not listed.

Ideally, the lists of allowed and mandatory fields could be different for symbols, footprints, the schematic and the layout

Hmmm ... ideally both should be the same. The fields should be defined in the schematic and then copied to the PCB. Adding extra information in the PCB isn't a good idea.

[set-soft]

I implemented an extension to check for extra fields, see #774