Skip to content

Autosize / autorange fixes #2437

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Mar 6, 2018
Merged

Autosize / autorange fixes #2437

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
85f0442
clean up config_test
alexcjohnson Mar 1, 2018
9f774c0
Fixes for both #2385 and #2428
alexcjohnson Mar 3, 2018
d9521e8
update test images for #2428 fix
alexcjohnson Mar 5, 2018
04806a2
update gl2d images for #2428 fix
alexcjohnson Mar 5, 2018
0ecaaaf
:hocho: commented-out code
alexcjohnson Mar 5, 2018
9913afe
clean up autorange.expand docs and var names
alexcjohnson Mar 5, 2018
f262dc9
Merge branch 'master' into react-autosize
alexcjohnson Mar 5, 2018
3875fcc
fast logic for axis expand where only data is an array
alexcjohnson Mar 5, 2018
8cf8d51
test editType for attrs that affect axis length
alexcjohnson Mar 5, 2018
cf48426
update gl2d autorange test for converged autorange calculation
alexcjohnson Mar 6, 2018
247c626
optimize fast autorange further by splitting log into its own loop
alexcjohnson Mar 6, 2018
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 4 additions & 4 deletions test/jasmine/tests/gl2d_plot_interact_test.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -907,8 +907,8 @@ describe('Test scattergl autorange:', function() {
marker: {size: 10}
}])
.then(function() {
expect(gd._fullLayout.xaxis.range).toBeCloseToArray([-0.02, 1.02], 'x range');
expect(gd._fullLayout.yaxis.range).toBeCloseToArray([-0.04, 1.04], 'y range');
expect(gd._fullLayout.xaxis.range).toBeCloseToArray([-0.079, 1.079], 2, 'x range');
expect(gd._fullLayout.yaxis.range).toBeCloseToArray([-0.105, 1.105], 2, 'y range');
})
.catch(fail)
.then(done);
Expand All @@ -925,8 +925,8 @@ describe('Test scattergl autorange:', function() {
marker: {size: ms}
}])
.then(function() {
expect(gd._fullLayout.xaxis.range).toBeCloseToArray([-0.05, 1.05], 'x range');
expect(gd._fullLayout.yaxis.range).toBeCloseToArray([-0.11, 1.11], 'y range');
expect(gd._fullLayout.xaxis.range).toBeCloseToArray([-0.119, 1.119], 2, 'x range');
expect(gd._fullLayout.yaxis.range).toBeCloseToArray([-0.199, 1.199], 2, 'y range');
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In comparison, at 1e5 - 1 pts (i.e. below the big-data threshold), we get:

image

@alexcjohnson I'll reference #2417 - but honestly feel free to close it if you think Axes.expand is satisfactory now.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Right, so I guess that result is saying that in this case the constant pixel padding we choose is a bit bigger than it would need to be... but this is a random case, a lot of real cases will have correlations, like all the biggest markers are near one edge, so I think this is a pretty good compromise.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

so I think this is a pretty good compromise.

Yep. I think so too 👌

})
.catch(fail)
.then(done);
Expand Down