-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Feature: Filtered Node/Edge Statistics Summary #95
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
Conversation
…input fields defaulting to strings.
…xes filter values being retained after deselecting filter operator.
…/edges were not displaying the right opacity level.
@benloh It looks like fading is now going to 100% transparent rather than the field in the view? ![]() |
Also, hidden edges are still appearing in the node panel on left, and the edges table |
… and edges. Fixes bug where calculating filtered stats were removing nodes and edges.
…ixes Filters Focus view failing to cover zoom buttons.
Sorry. Bad logic was interfering with counting. Should be fixed now.
Fixed.
Do you mean that hidden edges should not show up in the node editor/node editor at all? So for all intents and purposes if something is filtered out it should never show up in any editor? Right now the editors refer to the full dataset rather than the filtered dataset (the rationale was that you still want to be able to view and edit a filtered node/edge). |
Sorry, I meant they should be faded in highlight and removed in remove, and that functionality is now restored with the recent fix - presumably the bad logic was effecting both appearances. However, I just noticed that now even though many of the nodes / edges may be hidden, they are counted in the "showing" count. So if you see 5 visible nodes and 115 semi-transparent ones, it says 120 still because they are present. Is it possible to have that say 5? In an ideal world maybe it changes to say "Highlighting 5/120"? The other two displays can maintain "Showing". |
I take that back - because the tab name is set in the template, we should stick with showing. However, if we can report just those that are fully visible and not the ones faded that'd be great. Thanks! |
…perly evaluate the node transparency rather than using edge transparency for everything.
Sorry, I guess this logic is screwier than I thought. Nodes and edges were using different thresholds for fading. I think the node visual fading was correct but the count was wrong. I think this should be fixed now. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good.
Addresses #84
Summary Statistics
Additional Fixes