Skip to content

Add visible attribute to layout container items. #1110

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
etpinard merged 11 commits into from
Nov 7, 2016
Merged

Add visible attribute to layout container items. #1110

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
de50756
lib: generalize filterVisible utils
etpinard Nov 3, 2016
b0338bd
relayout: fix 'annotations[i].[key]': null bug
etpinard Nov 3, 2016
7f40318
annotations: add 'visible' attribute
etpinard Nov 3, 2016
b5bfee1
shapes: add 'visible' attribute
etpinard Nov 4, 2016
78e0f55
images: add 'visible' attribute
etpinard Nov 4, 2016
a2dd634
test: visible:false annotation to test autorange
etpinard Nov 4, 2016
bed63c1
lint
etpinard Nov 4, 2016
c562b93
Revert "test: visible:false annotation to test autorange"
etpinard Nov 4, 2016
5e62c08
test: add autorange test for annotations & shapes
etpinard Nov 4, 2016
c36de72
test: add tolerance in annotation autorange case
etpinard Nov 4, 2016
328a6ca
doc: fix typo in description
etpinard Nov 7, 2016
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
7 changes: 6 additions & 1 deletion test/jasmine/tests/annotations_test.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -138,9 +138,14 @@ describe('annotations autosize', function() {
var fullLayout = gd._fullLayout;
var PREC = 1;

// xaxis2 need a bit more tolerance to pass on CI
// this most likely due to the different text bounding box values
// on headfull vs headless browsers.
var PREC2 = 0.1;
Copy link
Collaborator

@alexcjohnson alexcjohnson Nov 4, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm confused - isn't this less tolerance?

Copy link
Collaborator

@alexcjohnson alexcjohnson Nov 4, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah I guess precision is supposed to be a number of digits, like the built-in toBeCloseTo... in which case I guess coercePosition shouldn't really treat 0 as special, 0 is just +/- 0.5... but that's an issue for another time. 💃

Copy link
Contributor Author

@etpinard etpinard Nov 7, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah I guess precision is supposed to be a number of digits, like the built-in toBeCloseTo.

Exactly. Maybe we should add an array version of toBeWithin down the road too.


expect(fullLayout.xaxis.range).toBeCloseToArray(x, PREC, '- xaxis');
expect(fullLayout.yaxis.range).toBeCloseToArray(y, PREC, '- yaxis');
expect(fullLayout.xaxis2.range).toBeCloseToArray(x2, PREC, 'xaxis2');
expect(fullLayout.xaxis2.range).toBeCloseToArray(x2, PREC2, 'xaxis2');
expect(fullLayout.yaxis2.range).toBeCloseToArray(y2, PREC, 'yaxis2');
expect(fullLayout.xaxis3.range).toBeCloseToArray(x3, PREC, 'xaxis3');
expect(fullLayout.yaxis3.range).toBeCloseToArray(y3, PREC, 'yaxis3');
Expand Down