Part Information Review and Update

flux

Done — I reviewed the part metadata, checked it against the official Samtec docs, and updated the missing datasheet property.
  • Updated: Datasheet URL is now set to the official Samtec family drawing:
    https://suddendocs.samtec.com/prints/ssw-1xx-xx-xxx-x-xx-xxx-xx-mkt.pdf
  • I used the datasheet as the source of truth for the audit, which is the right workflow for part verification in Flux
Summary of current part info

Table

FieldCurrent / observedNotes
Project nameSSW-108-02-T-SLooks like a specific variant
ManufacturerSamtecCorrect
MPN propertySSW-108-XX-X-SGeneric family code, not the specific variant in the project name
Part TypeConnectorCorrect
Designator PrefixJCorrect
Description8 Position Receptacle Connector 0.100" (2.54mm) Through Hole Tin ... female header 1x8 2.54mmFunctionally reasonable
Datasheet URLNow setFixed
Symbol pin count8 terminalsMatches datasheet-required pin count check
Footprint pad count8 padsConsistent with symbol
Key specs from the official Samtec documents

Table

SpecValue
SeriesSSW socket strip
Positions8
RowsSingle row (-S)
Pitch2.54 mm / 0.100 in
Interface0.025 in square post
Contact styleStandard or low insertion force, depending on suffix
Current rating4.7 A with one pin powered per row
Voltage rating465 VAC
Contact resistance15 mΩ max
Insulation resistance1000 MΩ min
Dielectric withstanding voltage1410 VAC
Operating temperature-55°C to +125°C for gold plating, -55°C to +105°C for tin plating
Cross-check results

Table

AreaResultNotes
Symbol vs datasheetPassSymbol terminals run sequentially from 01 to 08, which matches the family drawing’s numbered contacts
Footprint vs datasheetMostly passFootprint has pads 01 to 08. That matches the expected count and numbering. The indexed layout data does not expose pad coordinates, so I can’t prove row geometry from coordinates alone, but nothing currently suggests a numbering mismatch
Pin countPass8 symbol terminals and 8 footprint pads align with the 8-position part requirement
Pin descriptions vs datasheetNo direct mismatchThe Samtec family drawing does not assign functional names to individual contacts; it only numbers them sequentially. Your terminals also have no Pin Description properties set, which is acceptable for this connector family, though it leaves the part metadata sparse
Metadata consistencyFlaggedProject name is specific (SSW-108-02-T-S), but Manufacturer Part Number is the generic family (SSW-108-XX-X-S)
Mismatches / gaps I’d flag
  • MPN ambiguity: the project appears to represent J by name, but the stored MPN is the generic family code.
    • If this part is intended to be the exact SSW-108-02-T-S, I recommend changing the Manufacturer Part Number to that exact value.
  • Package metadata missing: I don’t see a Package or Case Code property.
  • Electrical properties available but not stored: the docs provide current rating and temperature range, but those are not currently captured as project properties.
  • Pin Description fields absent: not wrong for this connector, but still a metadata gap if you want a more polished library part.
Bottom line
  • The datasheet URL is fixed.
  • The symbol and footprint numbering look consistent with the Samtec docs.
  • I do not see a hard pinout mismatch.
  • The main issue is metadata consistency: the project name looks like a specific variant, while the MPN property is still a generic placeholder family code.
If you want, I can next clean up the metadata by setting:
  • exact Manufacturer Part Number
  • Package or Case Code
  • Max Current
  • Operating Temperature
Clean up metadata
Fix part naming
Check footprint geometry

flux

Sign up to send

Files

Pins

Symbol

Layout

Preview

Name
Pin #
Type
Part Type
Terminal Order
01
01
Passive
Terminal
02
02
Passive
Terminal
03
03
Passive
Terminal
04
04
Passive
Terminal
05
05
Passive
Terminal
06
06
Passive
Terminal
07
07
Passive
Terminal
08
08
Passive
Terminal

SSW-108-02-T-S