Standardise width calculation
#6065
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
teunbrand
changed the title
width calculationwidth calculation
|
With #5961 merged, this is ready for review |
teunbrand
changed the title
width calculationwidth calculation
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR aims to fix #2800.
Briefly; it adds a helper function to standardise computing widths and applies it to several geoms that compute it.
There are several problems with the current situation;
widthas an aesthetic, some havewidthas a parameter.Geom$default_aes$widthis a 'dummy' default which was never actually used.Respecitvely, this PR solves these thus:
widthis implemented as aesthetic.Geom$default_aes$widthis used as a multiplier after calculating the data resolution. It replaces hardcoded defaults.As a caveat; I didn't treat
GeomErrorbarhin this PR, but that is because I think it should be deprecated (#5961). For this reason I still treat this as POC.