Fix #7876: Ticklabelindex positioning - #7934
Open
my-tien wants to merge 6 commits into
Open
Conversation
Previously, the ticklabelindex property itself was used in boolean tests which can be confusing.
my-tien
marked this pull request as draft
August 5, 2026 13:01
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Fixes #7876 by rewriting the way period label positioning works when using ticklabelindex.
Previously, the next labeled tick was used as the period end for the previous tick. This was problematic when using ticklabelindex, because sometimes the next labeled period is not necessarily adjacent to the last labeled period.
Now positionPeriodTicks can accept an array of periodEndTicks instead.