Skip to content
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

Consider making scale.ticks only representative of the tick labels. #1692

Closed
wcatron opened this issue Nov 24, 2015 · 3 comments · Fixed by #6738
Closed

Consider making scale.ticks only representative of the tick labels. #1692

wcatron opened this issue Nov 24, 2015 · 3 comments · Fixed by #6738

Comments

@wcatron
Copy link

wcatron commented Nov 24, 2015

While commenting the documentation it seems to make some logical sense for the beginAtZero, reverse, suggestedMin and suggestedMax options be moved up a level as they define the scale in general not just the tick labels. This would allow for less nesting for some of these basic features. Also it would be easier to document the ticks option array as specifically controlling the display properties of the tick labels. For example ticks.beginAtZero is still important even if ticks.show = false; as it effects the grid and the entire display of the chart; that seems to break a proverbial bubble around each option set.

@etimberg
Copy link
Member

@wcatron I agree with separating those settings out. I think at one point we had the scale config something like the one below. I'm not entirely sure why we moved away from that.

{
    ticks: {
        /* numerical settings */
    },
    labels: {
        /* string settings */
    }
}

@etimberg etimberg added this to the Future milestone Feb 27, 2016
@etimberg etimberg removed this from the Future milestone Oct 24, 2016
@etimberg
Copy link
Member

etimberg commented Jul 3, 2017

Closing since we aren't going to make this change in v2. perhaps in a v3

@etimberg etimberg closed this as completed Jul 3, 2017
@benmccann benmccann added this to the Version 3.0 milestone Dec 2, 2017
@benmccann benmccann reopened this Dec 2, 2017
@benmccann
Copy link
Contributor

Reopening this and tagging with 3.0 so that we can consider it when we start on v3

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants