Skip to content
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

Bugfix: lcviz TPFs are sliced by cube index rather than time slice #3235

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

bmorris3
Copy link
Contributor

@bmorris3 bmorris3 commented Oct 18, 2024

Description

TPFs in lcviz should be sliceable by their time axes. Somewhere since jdaviz v3.9, a bug was introduced that causes the step size in the lcviz Time Selector plugin to be fixed to integer values.

lcviz-slice.mov

This PR corrects the slice values for cube axes defined by temporal WCS. Here's a demo after this PR:

lcviz-slice-fix.mov

The failing devdeps tests in this PR should be fixed by #3232.

Change log entry

  • Is a change log needed? If yes, is it added to CHANGES.rst? If you want to avoid merge conflicts,
    list the proposed change log here for review and add to CHANGES.rst before merge. If no, maintainer
    should add a no-changelog-entry-needed label.

Checklist for package maintainer(s)

This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainer(s) who will review this pull request of some common things to look for. This list is not exhaustive.

  • Are two approvals required? Branch protection rule does not check for the second approval. If a second approval is not necessary, please apply the trivial label.
  • Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals? Also manually run the affected example notebooks, if necessary.
  • Do the proposed changes follow the STScI Style Guides?
  • Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the STScI Style Guides?
  • Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the STScI Style Guides?
  • Did the CI pass? If not, are the failures related?
  • Is a milestone set? Set this to bugfix milestone if this is a bug fix and needs to be released ASAP; otherwise, set this to the next major release milestone. Bugfix milestone also needs an accompanying backport label.
  • After merge, any internal documentations need updating (e.g., JIRA, Innerspace)?

@github-actions github-actions bot added cubeviz plugin Label for plugins common to multiple configurations labels Oct 18, 2024
@kecnry kecnry added this to the 4.0.1 milestone Oct 18, 2024
@kecnry kecnry added the 💤backport-v4.0.x on-merge: backport to v4.0.x label Oct 18, 2024
@bmorris3 bmorris3 force-pushed the bugfix-cube-slice-values branch from 8a17fa6 to b00ae03 Compare October 18, 2024 18:00
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 18, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 73.33333% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.61%. Comparing base (9a1fe09) to head (b00ae03).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
jdaviz/configs/cubeviz/plugins/mixins.py 73.33% 4 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3235      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.62%   88.61%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         125      125              
  Lines       18775    18779       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits        16639    16641       +2     
- Misses       2136     2138       +2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@pllim pllim modified the milestones: 4.0.1, 4.0.2, 4.1 Dec 17, 2024
@rosteen rosteen modified the milestones: 4.1, 4.1.1 Dec 23, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cubeviz plugin Label for plugins common to multiple configurations 💤backport-v4.0.x on-merge: backport to v4.0.x
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants