FIX: Always update tick labels (fixes #9397)#9452
Merged
NelleV merged 1 commit intoOct 17, 2017
Merged
Conversation
anntzer
approved these changes
Oct 17, 2017
anntzer
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess that'll count as @afvincent's approval of my patch... :-)
45eb1ae to
27fd53a
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
Rebased to fix some PEP8 issues... |
6 tasks
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
PR Summary
Force the update of all the tick labels, even the ones that are not drawn. This addresses the issue #9397 where incorrect labels are returned when some ticks are outside of the displayed range. Please note that the fix idea is @anntzer's one.
PR Checklist
Milestoning it for 2.1.1 as it looks like a minor bugfix to me but feel free to postpone it to 2.2 if somebody thinks that it would be better.(see edit)Supplementary question: should I rebase against the 2.1.x branch?
Edit: re-milestoning it for v2.2, accordingly to what @dstansby suggested in #9397.