Add raster.dpi param for geom_scattermore (updated branch) #5392
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hi Seurat Team,
Just quick PR supporting what I think seems like good feature request in #5388. This adds relevant new parameter
raster.dpito relevant plots that usegeom_scattermore. I have also added appropriate documentation and a warning check to make sure that supplied values forraster.dpiare valid. Pretty sure I caught all the spots (SingleCorPlotandSingleDimPlotand their downstream functions).Similar to
rasterI set parameter to NULL in the base plotting functions and set default value in downstream functions (to value that is equivalent to current scattermore defaults). Alternatively could change it so that parameter is NULL in downstream functions and add code so that if left NULL it will default toc(512, 512)if you think that's better on user end.Thanks again!
Sam
Note: This is resubmission of previous PR #5391. Just decided to make it easy and fetch changes upstream and remake the PR rather than resolving conflicts.