-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
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
Change labels in point_plotter.py #32
Conversation
# Conflicts: # examples/conc_col_pmm/calc_document/plotting/point_plotter.py # examples/conc_col_pmm/tests/visual_tests/visual_test_document_wrapper.py # examples/conc_col_pmm/tests/visual_tests/visual_test_pmm_plotter_plotly.py # examples/conc_col_pmm/tests/visual_tests/visual_test_point_plotter.py
Return PMM data from main calculation function Revert relative import changes and rename visual test files Fix PMM field types
Reviewer's Guide by SourceryThe changes improve the label positioning in the point plotter by separating the x and y offset calculations and adjusting the vertical positioning of labels based on their location. This makes the plot more readable by preventing label overlap. Class diagram for label offset changes in point_plotter.pyclassDiagram
class PointPlotter {
+plot(capacity_pts, point: LoadCombination | None, only_Mx)
}
PointPlotter : -label_offset_x
PointPlotter : -label_offsets_y
PointPlotter : +plot()
note for PointPlotter "Updated label offset calculations for x and y axes"
File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @janderson4 - I've reviewed your changes - here's some feedback:
Overall Comments:
- There's a bug in the point plotting section - the variable 'i' is undefined when determining label_offset_y. You'll need to use a different condition to determine whether to use the top or bottom offset.
Here's what I looked at during the review
- 🟢 General issues: all looks good
- 🟢 Security: all looks good
- 🟢 Testing: all looks good
- 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
- 🟢 Documentation: all looks good
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
I committed the changes directly for this one. We'll probably want to clean up your repo git history and use branches for future PRs |
Summary by Sourcery
Enhancements: