feat: plot1d for hist(cat,reg)

[andrzejnovak]

Fixes #173.

I am kind of expecting to get shouted at for UHI abuse one way or another, but that's what I could piece from the docs on first run.

[henryiii]

Mostly looks good!

[henryiii]

I'm not sure I like this. It's also valid to make a 2D plot where one axis is categorical (or two, for that matter). I think it would be more predictable if .plot() on a 2D histogram always made a 2D plot. But I could be convinced. What do other people think? @nsmith-, @matthewfeickert, perhaps?

[andrzejnovak]

What @nsmith- 's coffea API does is have overlay keyword to control this for non-discrete axes, but if think the number of 2d histograms of type (sample, quantity) is gonna be higher than (quantity, quantity) at least if one of the axes is StrCat (or just Cat)

[nsmith-]

I suppose in coffea its either plot1d or plot2d. But indeed if overlay: Optional[str] is a parameter, one can take that to decide if a 2D hist is a 2D plot or a set of 1D plots with the overlay axis as specified.

[nsmith-]

Another option might be to follow pandas style, where the hist would have to be turned into some kind of HistGroupBy object before plotting, e.g. h.groupby("region").plot().

[andrzejnovak]

tbh since hist does plot1d() and plot2d() as well and plot() is just a two char shortcut, this is a trifle.

@nsmith- can you think of any other use for some kind of groupby fcn than this? I don't think it's worth fiddling with just for this

[nsmith-]

Not yet, probably you are right to leave it as-is for now.

[andrzejnovak]

@henryiii should I try to make sourcery happy? otherwise this is ready for review I think

[henryiii]

should I try to make sourcery happy

Only if it wants a sensible change (not always). If it's just the "guard" style if, I mildly like that, so if you are neutral, I'd go with that.

[henryiii]

@all-contributors please add @andrzejnovak for code

[allcontributors]

@henryiii

I've put up a pull request to add @andrzejnovak! 🎉

[sourcery-ai]

Sourcery Code Quality Report

✅  Merging this PR will increase code quality in the affected files by 0.12%.

Quality metrics	Before	After	Change
Complexity	2.92 ⭐	2.89 ⭐	-0.03 👍
Method Length	91.37 🙂	96.28 🙂	4.91 👎
Working memory	14.79 😞	14.61 😞	-0.18 👍
Quality	53.84% 🙂	53.96% 🙂	0.12% 👍

Other metrics	Before	After	Change
Lines	960	1010	50

Changed files	Quality Before	Quality After	Quality Change
src/hist/basehist.py	63.32% 🙂	62.38% 🙂	-0.94% 👎
tests/test_plot.py	48.10% 😞	48.80% 😞	0.70% 👍

Here are some functions in these files that still need a tune-up:

File	Function	Complexity	Length	Working Memory	Quality	Recommendation
src/hist/basehist.py	BaseHist.__init__	18 🙂	176 😞	14 😞	37.34% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
src/hist/basehist.py	BaseHist.from_columns	14 🙂	160 😞	16 ⛔	39.67% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
tests/test_plot.py	test_general_plot1d.test_general_plot2d.test_general_plot2d_full.test_general_plot.test_named_plot1d.test_named_plot2d.test_named_plot2d_full.test_named_plot.test_named_plot_pull	0 ⭐	369 ⛔	16 ⛔	42.53% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
tests/test_plot.py	test_general_plot1d.test_general_plot2d.test_general_plot2d_full.test_general_plot.test_general_plot_pull	0 ⭐	361 ⛔	16 ⛔	42.67% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
tests/test_plot.py	test_general_plot1d.test_general_plot2d.test_general_plot2d_full.test_general_plot.test_named_plot1d.test_named_plot2d.test_named_plot2d_full.test_named_plot	0 ⭐	246 ⛔	20 ⛔	43.21% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions

Legend and Explanation

The emojis denote the absolute quality of the code:

• ⭐ excellent
• 🙂 good
• 😞 poor
• ⛔ very poor

The 👍 and 👎 indicate whether the quality has improved or gotten worse with this pull request.

---

Please see our documentation here for details on how these metrics are calculated.

We are actively working on this report - lots more documentation and extra metrics to come!

Let us know what you think of it by mentioning @sourcery-ai in a comment.

[andrzejnovak]

@henryiii looks done then, let me know if you'd like me to squash the commits

[henryiii]

Nah, that's fine, I usually squash and merge unless there's a need to leave more than one comment (like a moved and changed file, or a set of sequential steps).

[henryiii]

Looks good to me!

[henryiii]

I'll fill in the changelog later, to keep the PRs from colliding.

[henryiii]

Thanks!!!