Support vertical and no-ticks for new range parameters#849
Merged
Conversation
lognaturel
changed the title
- also delete old/redundant docstring and move no_ticks_appearance closer to where it used in the tick_labelset branch.
Contributor
|
Looks good! Just some minor tidying. Added #850 for the idea on improving appearances handling. |
lindsay-stevens
approved these changes
Jun 23, 2026
This file contains hidden or 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
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Closes #846
Why is this the best possible solution? Were any other approaches considered?
I considered splitting the appearance string into tokens which would be more correct but I think string membership is easier to read and is fine for a short list of well-known tokens.
What are the regression risks?
Small fix so should be minimal. Worst case is probably that the new range parameters are allowed to pair with appearances they're not supposed to pair with.
Does this change require updates to documentation? If so, please file an issue here and include the link below.
No
Before submitting this PR, please make sure you have:
testspython -m unittestand verified all tests passruff format pyxform testsandruff check pyxform teststo lint code