-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7.9k
WIP: Contour log extension #8834
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.
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
Conversation
The contour_hatching test still fails because the gray shades are not the same as they were. I can fix this by regenerating the images, but those images show a much bigger problem: the pdf and svg test images are very different from the png. See #3841. It's not clear to me whether the problem is as described there. In any case, in the test images it looks like the alpha is applied to the hatch in the svg and pdf but not in the png. The result is actually better with the png. |
Popping back into 3 in case @efiring feels inspired... Its also possible some of the alpha inconsistencies have been worked on? |
Locator.tick_values() returns levels beyond the data limits. In the case of LogLocator with a small data range, the overrun can be large because it is expanding to the decade points. In addition, no account was being taken of the "extend" kwarg. With this changeset, the outermost levels will be the miminum required to include the data interval in the default case, and will be reduced when "extend" is used so that some of the data range will fall in the extended sections. This is expected to be rare, however; normally the "extend" kwarg would be used only when levels are explicitly set, not auto-selected with a Locator.
This puts the hatches in the same order as they were in the reference figure, but the images still don't match because the gray shades are not the same as they were. Furthermore, looking at the original reference figures shows that the pdf and svg backends handle the alpha differently than the agg backend. Not sure what to do about that.
399d57a
to
91a38f7
Compare
Closing in favor of #11412. |
This is inspired by, and partially derived from, #8806 by @Tuan333.