Add slots, retaining ring grooves and threaded center holes

[werk24]

Three additions to the v2 models, so a response can carry three kinds of feature it could not describe before.

• Slot: an elongated hole with round ends, sized by its width and, if stated, its length (2x Langloch 14x15, 3x Langloch Ø 10).
  • width is the smaller of two written sizes, and also the diameter of the round ends. It is a linear size even when written with Ø; the label keeps the Ø.
  • length is the larger size, as written.
  • It is distinct from KeySlot, which is named by the key it takes.
• RetainingRingGroove, with the enum RetainingRingSide (SHAFT / BORE): a groove for a retaining ring, named by the ring it takes.
  • Fields: standard (e.g. DIN 471), ring_side, nominal_diameter (the shaft or bore diameter), ring_thickness, and a maker's designation and manufacturer when the drawing names the ring that way.
• CenterHole.thread: the thread of a threaded center hole (DIN 332-2 forms D, DR, DS, e.g. DIN 332-D M16).
  • It is embedded like FastenerSpecification.thread.
  • None for a center hole without a thread.
  • The form, pilot_diameter and outer_diameter descriptions now cover the threaded forms too.
• ResponseFeaturesComponentDrawing gains slots and retaining_ring_grooves, both empty by default.
• Exports: all new names are exported from werk24.

Compatibility: every addition is optional or defaults to empty. A response without the new fields, and a CenterHole without thread, still parse, and tests pin both.

Tests: .venv/bin/python -m pytest gives 1009 passed, 5 skipped (997 passed, 5 skipped on main). The 12 new tests are in tests/test_standard_features.py: a round-trip of each model, a center hole with and without a thread, a slot written with Ø, a designation-only groove, and the two compatibility cases.

Questions for the owner

Two questions. Neither blocks the merge; each has a recommendation.

1. Keep Seeger RB 042 as the example of a maker's designation?

   • It appears in the RetainingRingGroove docstring, a test and the commit message, as the example of a ring named by its maker rather than by a standard. It has not been checked against the maker's catalogue.
   • Recommendation: keep it if it is a real designation. Otherwise replace it with one from the catalogue before the next release.

2. Is DIN 472 42x1,75 right as the bore example?

   • It is the example for a bore ring in the RetainingRingGroove docstring and the retaining_ring_grooves description: a 42 mm bore taking a 1.75 mm ring.
   • Recommendation: yes, if it matches the DIN 472 table. Otherwise use a row that does.

Not questions, for after the merge:

• Release it, so clients installing from PyPI get the new models.
• Document the two new lists in the features response on the docs site.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_013aeHb3dRVKHNVQLbu3idcS

---

Generated by Claude Code

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🟡 Changes recommended

The DIN 332-2 diameter mapping is inaccurate and cannot represent both dimensions in the documented callout.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: 1

Open (1)

• Correct DIN 332-2 diameter mapping and test representation · New

What changed in this PR

Adds v2 model support for slots, retaining-ring grooves, and threaded center holes.

Changes:

• Adds new feature models and retaining-ring side enum.
• Extends component responses with compatible default-empty lists.
• Adds serialization, validation, export, and compatibility tests.

File	Description
werk24/​models/​v2/​responses.py	Exposes the new feature lists.
werk24/​models/​v2/​models.py	Defines the models and center-hole thread support.
werk24/​models/​v2/​enums.py	Adds retaining-ring placement values.
tests/​test_standard_features.py	Covers new models and compatibility.

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.