Repository navigation
Re-write stacked step histogram - #1724
Conversation
|
+1 for this. |
|
Thanks for working on this -- it's a hairy bit of code. I am seeing a change in behavior vs. the 1.1.x baseline mentioned in #1679 -- not sure whether it's a correct change or a regression... it seems some bars that were once very close to zero in height are larger now. v1.1.x: This branch: It might be a good idea to add this as another image test. Also, could you rebase on master to make sure it's mergeable again and being tested by Travis? |
|
Finally have time to work on this again. I'm a little bit confused about your request to rebase on master. Do you want this PR to target master instead of v1.2.x? If I rebase onto master and still target v1.2.x, won't this PR unintentionally try to pull in all of the changes in the master branch? |
|
@neggert, I'm not positive, but I suspect @mdboom was not intending that you change the target. In case he is unable to answer right away, I suggest that you leave the PR targetting 1.2.x, and rebase on that; I think the main point is to get it into testable and mergeable condition again. Assuming it really is a bugfix, and is not changing behavior that user code is depending on, then 1.2.x is the right target. (And you are correct, it should be rebased only against the intended up-to-date target.) |
|
@tacaswell This will include your fix. I would propose that I include your additional test into this PR, then merge this one. Does that seem reasonable? |
|
@neggert That seems fine. While fixing that I started planning to do a bunch of the stuff that is in this PR. |
|
Just pushed a bunch of changes.
There is one test that fails on this PR and I'd like some advice on what to do about it. Should I just update the expected image? |
|
I would have preferred if you cherry picked/merged my commits rather than squashing them down into a single commit. Thinking about this more, the issue with |
|
I'll leave that up to @mdboom et al. If they want to merge your PR now and On Saturday, February 23, 2013, Thomas A Caswell wrote:
Sent from Gmail Mobile |
|
Thanks for all this. Indeed, I meant to rebase on I think updating the baseline image is sufficient, as you say. I plan to test and merge #1763 relatively soon, and then look at this, which I think would also be very nice to have in a Thanks for all of this work -- it's nice to have all these details get ironed out! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
PEP8: No spaces around = for kwargs.
|
I'm getting this for I'm also seeing the same Other than the PEP8 fixes, and getting this test to pass, I think this is an important thing to have in |
|
Just rebased, fixed the tests, and did the PEP8 fixes. |






This is a second try at #1706. I think it resolves all of the issues with that PR.
This is re-write of how stacked histograms are handled. It should fix #1679 and #1631, which both came about because of the way that stacked histograms were handled, starting in #847.
I've also added tests that should catch both bugs if they pop up again.