Part Information Review and Update
Thought for 1 min 44 sec
I reviewed the current part project against the datasheet workflow: use the datasheet as the source of truth, match the pin count exactly, and flag any missing or incorrect metadata rather than guessing
Result
- Datasheet URL already exists, so no web search/update was needed.
- The part project is mostly structurally consistent for a 10-pin dual-row connector.
- The main issues are missing metadata/detail, not obvious numbering errors:
- No package/case code property
- No pin descriptions
- All terminals still have
Pin Type = Unspecified - Project description is present but could be more specific
Table
| Field | In project | From datasheet / source | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | Sullins | Sullins | OK |
| MPN | GRPB052VWVN-RC | GRPB052VWVN-RC | OK |
| Part Type | Connectors | Connector / dual-row male header | OK |
| Designator Prefix | J | Connector-style prefix is appropriate | OK |
| Mount | PCB | Through-hole PCB header | OK |
| Datasheet URL | Set | Set | OK |
| Package / Case Code | Not present | Straight dual-row 0.050 in / 1.27 mm male header, through-hole | Missing |
| Description | CONN HEADER .050" 10PS DL PCB AU | Dual-row male header, straight, 10 positions, gold finish | Acceptable but terse |
Table
| Spec | Value |
|---|---|
| Function | Straight dual-row male header |
| Positions | 10 |
| Rows | 2 |
| Pitch | 0.050 in / 1.27 mm |
| Row spacing | 0.050 in / 1.27 mm |
| Mounting | Through-hole |
| Contact finish | Gold flash overall |
| Current rating | 1 A |
| Withstand voltage | 500 VAC dielectric |
| Operating temperature | -40°C to +105°C |
| Pin style | 0.016 in / 0.40 mm square pins |
| Recommended hole size | 0.028 ± 0.002 in / 0.70 ± 0.05 mm |
- The schematic contains exactly 10 terminal components, numbered 1 through 10.
- The symbol arrangement appears to be:
- Left side: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9
- Right side: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10
That matches the standard dual-row numbering described in the datasheet for the 10-position version.
Symbol audit
Table
| Check | Result |
|---|---|
| Pin count matches datasheet | Yes |
| Odd/even row arrangement matches datasheet convention | Yes |
| Pin numbers present | Yes |
| Pin names/descriptions populated | No |
| Pin types populated | No |
- For this connector, the lack of named signals is not necessarily wrong, because the datasheet does not assign functional names beyond contact numbers.
- However, the terminals should still ideally have short descriptions like
Contact 1,Contact 2, etc., or similar concise labels per the recommended part-project audit workflow Pin Type = Unspecifiedis not ideal. For a connector, Passive is usually more appropriate than Unspecified when there is no directional behavior.
- The PCB footprint contains 10 pads, designators 1 through 10.
- So the footprint pad count matches the symbol terminal count.
Table
| Check | Result |
|---|---|
| Pad count = 10 | Yes |
| Pad numbering 1-10 present | Yes |
| Symbol-to-footprint count consistency | Yes |
| Mechanical dimensions visible in current project data | Limited |
| Can confirm exact drill/pad geometry from project data alone | No |
For the 10-position version, the footprint should reflect:
- 2 x 5 through-hole grid
- 1.27 mm pitch along each row
- 1.27 mm row spacing
- 0.70 mm finished hole target from the recommended layout
- Straight vertical male header form factor
From the project data I can confirm the 10-pad structure, but I cannot fully verify exact drill diameter, pad size, and courtyard/body outline dimensions from the currently returned layout fields.
Mismatches / issues found
Flags
Table
| Item | Status | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Datasheet URL | OK | Already set |
| MPN | OK | Matches |
| Manufacturer | OK | Matches |
| Part type | OK | Reasonable |
| Pin count | OK | 10 in symbol and footprint |
| Pin numbering pattern | OK | Odd/even dual-row pattern is consistent |
| Pin descriptions | Issue | Missing on all terminals |
| Pin types | Issue | All set to Unspecified |
| Package / case metadata | Issue | Missing or not explicit |
| Full mechanical footprint verification | Partial | Need exact pad/drill geometry output to confirm completely |
Based on the part-project sync guidance, the next improvements would be: exact metadata alignment, terminal property completion, and verifying every pin property against the datasheet rather than leaving them unspecified
Recommended updates
Table
| Property / field | Recommended value |
|---|---|
| Description | Straight dual-row male header, 10 positions, 1.27 mm pitch, through-hole, gold flash |
| Package or Case Code | Something explicit like TH_HEADER_2X05_1.27MM_STRAIGHT |
| Terminal Pin Type | Passive for pins 1-10 |
| Terminal Pin Description | Contact 1 ... Contact 10 |
- No hard mismatch found in the basic part structure.
- The part appears to be a 10-pin dual-row through-hole header with correct 1-10 terminal/pad count and a reasonable odd/even numbering layout.
- The main problems are incompleteness, not wrong geometry:
- missing package metadata
- missing pin descriptions
- terminals left as Unspecified
If you want, I can do the next pass and fill in the missing terminal properties and tighten the project metadata.
Fix pin metadata
Verify footprint geometry
Tighten part description
To get started, talk to Flux or create a New Document.
Welcome 👋
Flux accelerates your PCB design with AI.
Create your account to start using this component and bring your ideas to life.