10000 Refactoring: Removing axis parameter from scales by vagnermcj · Pull Request #29988 · matplotlib/matplotlib · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to content

Refactoring: Removing axis parameter from scales #29988

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

Open
wants to merge 19 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

vagnermcj
Copy link

This PR addresses issue #29349 by refactoring built-in scale classes to make the axis parameter optional. The goal is to support future removal of axis while maintaining backward compatibility with current usage.

To achieve this, a decorator was introduced to allow constructors to accept or ignore axis. This was applied across all built-in scales. The scale_factory() function was updated to handle scale classes that do or do not use axis, and register_scale() now issues a deprecation warning if the constructor still expects it.

These changes prepare the codebase for eventual deprecation of axis in scale initializers, while avoiding any breaking changes in current usage.

My only doubt is which initializers for the scales should have the parameter as "axis = None". If all of them should have it, then i have to change the way my decorator works because axis could change position in parameters index

@vagnermcj vagnermcj marked this pull request as draft April 29, 2025 20:02
Copy link
@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for opening your first PR into Matplotlib!

If you have not heard from us in a week or so, please leave a new comment below and that should bring it to our attention. Most of our reviewers are volunteers and sometimes things fall through the cracks.

You can also join us on gitter for real-time discussion.

For details on testing, writing docs, and our review process, please see the developer guide

We strive to be a welcoming and open project. Please follow our Code of Conduct.

@vagnermcj vagnermcj marked this pull request as ready for review April 30, 2025 13:12
Copy link
Member
@timhoffm timhoffm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the PR. This is a bit tricky to get right in a backward-compatible and migration-easy way. I think we need to do it slightly differently.

@vagnermcj
Copy link
Author

Apologies for the sequence of commits — I wanted to ensure each feedback point was properly addressed and tested incrementally. Please let me know if this is the appropriate way to validate ruff, mypy-stubtest, and CI tests in general, or if you'd prefer a cleaner commit history or a different workflow.

I changed back the deprecation warning function, and changed the decorator as well. However, in the decorator i had many errors when trying to check "if args and isinstance(args[0], ScaleBase):", so instead of using ScaleBase as a reference i changed to "if args and isinstance(args[0], mpl.axis.Axis):". Does it make sense?

Let me know if anything else needs to be refined or if the structure of the changes could be improved further. Thanks again for your time and guidance throughout the review!

Copy link
Member
@timhoffm timhoffm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Apologies for the sequence of commits — I wanted to ensure each feedback point was properly addressed and tested incrementally. Please let me know if this is the appropriate way to validate ruff, mypy-stubtest, and CI tests in general, or if you'd prefer a cleaner commit history or a different workflow.

It does not matter for small PRs. We'll typically review the full diff and squash-merge.

However, in the decorator i had many errors when trying to check "if args and isinstance(args[0], ScaleBase):", so instead of using ScaleBase as a reference i changed to "if args and isinstance(args[0], mpl.axis.Axis):". Does it make sense?

Yes. Sorry my bad for the incorrect suggestion.

Let me know if anything else needs to be refined or if the structure of the changes could be improved further. Thanks again for your time and guidance throughout the review!

You should add a test that the decorated scales can be created with and without axis passed. - Either test on one of the scales, or write an explicit test for the decorator.

vagnermcj and others added 8 commits May 27, 2025 19:17
Co-authored-by: Tim Hoffmann <2836374+timhoffm@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Tim Hoffmann <2836374+timhoffm@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Tim Hoffmann <2836374+timhoffm@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Tim Hoffmann <2836374+timhoffm@users.noreply.github.com>
@vagnermcj
Copy link
Author

image

I st B626 arted having this error with linting, but i don't understand why. It seems the error is in the _mathtext.py file, but i never changed it

@rcomer
Copy link
Member
rcomer commented May 29, 2025

Looks like mypy just made a new release, so I suspect we will now see the same linting errors on all PRs. You can ignore them here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Waiting for author
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants
0