Michael Droettboom wrote:
Eric Firing wrote:
Mike,
A bug was recently pointed out: axhline, axvline, axhspan, axvspan mess up the ax.dataLim. I committed a quick fix for axhline and axvline, but I don't think that what I did is a good solution, so before doing anything for axhspan and axvspan I want to arrive at a better strategy.
What is needed is a clean way to specify that only the x or the y part of ax.dataLim be updated when a line or patch (or potentially anything else) is added. This is specifically for the case, as in *line, where one axis is in data coordinates and the other is in normalized coordinates--we don't want the latter to have any effect on the dataLim.
This could be done in python in any of a variety of ways, but I suspect that to be most consistent with the way the transforms code is now written, relying on update_path_extends from _path.cpp, it might make sense to append two boolean arguments to that cpp function, "update_x" and "update_y", and use kwargs in Bbox.update_from_path and siblings to set these, with default values of True.
It seems we could do this without touching C at all. Just change update_from_path so it only updates certain coordinates in the bounding box based on the kwargs you propose. Sure, the C side will be keeping track of y bounds even when it doesn't have to, but I doubt that matters much compared to checking a flag in the inner loop. It will compute the bezier curves for both x and y anyway (without digging into Agg). It's hard to really estimate the performance impact, so I'm necessarily pushing for either option, but it may save having to update the C.
Mike,
I was somehow thinking that update_path_extents was changing things in place--completely wrong. So yes, it is trivial to make the change at the python level, and that is definitely the place to do it. I will try to take care of it this evening.
In poking around, however, I came up with a couple of questions. Neither is a blocker for what I need to do, but each might deserve a comment in the code, if nothing else.
1) in _path.cpp:
void get_path_extents(PathIterator& path, const agg::trans_affine& trans,
double* x0, double* y0, double* x1, double* y1,
double* xm, double* ym)
{
typedef agg::conv_transform<PathIterator> transformed_path_t;
typedef agg::conv_curve<transformed_path_t> curve_t;
double x, y;
unsigned code;
transformed_path_t tpath(path, trans);
curve_t curved_path(tpath);
curved_path.rewind(0);
while ((code = curved_path.vertex(&x, &y)) != agg::path_cmd_stop)
{
if ((code & agg::path_cmd_end_poly) == agg::path_cmd_end_poly)
continue;
/* if (MPL_notisfinite64(x) || MPL_notisfinite64(y))
continue;
We should not need the above, because the path iterator
should already be filtering out invalid values.
*/
if (x < *x0) *x0 = x;
if (y < *y0) *y0 = y;
if (x > *x1) *x1 = x;
if (y > *y1) *y1 = y;
if (x > 0.0 && x < *xm) *xm = x;
if (y > 0.0 && y < *ym) *ym = y;
}
}
In the last 2 lines, why are xm and ym being clipped at 0, when x0 and y0 are not?
2) It looks like update_path_extents throws away orientation by always returning x0 and y0 as the minima. Bbox.update_from_path is therefore doing the same. This doesn't hurt in present usage, since orientation is not needed for dataLim, but it seems a bit surprising, and worth a comment at least. Am I again missing something obvious?
Eric
Are you suggesting that if a line has x decreasing then x0 > x1? What if it boomerangs? I think it's simplest to keep data limits in a consistent order. View limits are another issue, of course.