Skip to content

Polar 2.0 replacement for legacy "area" type #2810

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

Closed
alexcjohnson opened this issue Jul 12, 2018 · 1 comment · Fixed by #2954
Closed

Polar 2.0 replacement for legacy "area" type #2810

alexcjohnson opened this issue Jul 12, 2018 · 1 comment · Fixed by #2954
Labels
feature something new

Comments

@alexcjohnson
Copy link
Collaborator

A request has come in for an updated version of the old area type. As mentioned by @etpinard in #2255:

How to replace legacy polar's area trace type? I'd vote for replacing it with polarbar or wedge. Most of the bar logic could be reused here.

Yes, it seems like this trace type is precisely bar transformed onto polar axes. For consistency with other trace type names perhaps it should be barpolar though?

Looks to me as though essentially all the existing bar trace attributes will translate to the new type straightforwardly. In fact, there's even an analog of orientation, though instead of (x|y) we'd have (radial|angular). For the request at hand only radial (which matches the legacy area type) is necessary, but some day someone will want angular as well, like https://peltiertech.com/time-is-on-my-side/
ring chart

The layout attributes (barmode, barnorm, bargap, bargroupgap) to the extent that we want them at all, we can make into attributes of the polar<N> subplot. I would suggest omitting (at least initially) barmode: 'group' and 'relative', and therefore also bargroupgap. Probably also omit barnorm, that only enhances the confusion over whether it's the radius or area that encodes value.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature something new
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants