Radar Charts - don't always display a fixed 5 grid lines #27
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
Instead, use maximum theoretical value, or 5 (as fallback)
Fixes change of grids after new round_count 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I recently used your library to create a radar chart, where each max value for the indicators was 6. Since round_count was set to a fixed 5 value, it resulted in each point being somewhat off from the line, even though I was only using values 0-6.
So I instead tried my hand at changing the calculations, so that (based on the maximum "max value" of all indicators), I try to find the maximum number of grid lines between 2 and 10, that are evenly divisible by the max I calculated.
So in my case, I would get 6 lines (6 is maximally evenly divisible by 6). If you had something like 1500, it would end up being 10, and so on. I left 5 as the fallback in case the calculation fails.
I did consider making it configurable, so if that's preferable, then I can try my hand at that.
If you don't see a benefit to this change, then that's fine too.
Any suggestions or requests are welcome!