Annotations improvements

[ivan-boikov]

Description

• type inference and reduced code size in process_annotation and locate_annotation
• allow for mixed type in coordinate tuples (will close [BUG] Relative positioning of annotations tuple cannot mix integer and float #4258)
• fixes problem noted in annotation auto-locations don't work with xlims #2591 about PGFPlotsX crash
• GR: support for 3D annotations (would close [FR] annotate! for 3D plots #4708, at least for GR)
• PGFPlotsX: relative placement in 2D and support for 3D annotations
• PythonPlot: support for 3D annotations (rotation is ignored, an issue with upstream?)
• InspectDR: relative placement in 2D
• PlotlyJS: 3D annotations still don't work as intended, but at least do not crash, I also don't know how to fix rotation

Figures

Generating code

using Plots
using Random

function test_2d(; N=8)
    Random.seed!(0)
    xy = ntuple(_ -> randn(N), 2); 
    pl0 = plot(xy...; marker=:circle, legend=:none, size=(2,2).*120); 
    annotate!(0.0, 0.0, text("0", 16, :red));
    annotate!((0.3, 0.3), text("REL", 12, :green, rotation=45));
    annotate!((5//6, 0.5), text("REL mixed", 12, :green, rotation=45));
    annotate!(xy..., @. text(string(1:N), :left));
    annotate!(:topcenter, "TOP");
    annotate!([:bottomcenter], ["BOT"]);
    annotate!([:topleft, :bottomright], ["TL", :BR])
end 

function test_3d(; N=8)
    Random.seed!(0)
    xyz = ntuple(_ -> randn(N), 3); 
    plot(xyz...; marker=:circle, legend=:none, size=(2,2).*120); 
    annotate!(0.0, 0.0, 0.0, text("0", :red));
    annotate!((0.3, 0.3, 0.3), text("REL", :green, rotation=45));
    annotate!((1, 0.5, 1//2), text("REL mixed", :green, rotation=45));
    annotate!(xyz..., @. text(string(1:N), :left))
end

gr()
savefig(test_2d(), "gr-2d.png")
savefig(test_3d(), "gr-3d.png")

pgfplotsx()
PGFPlotsX.latexengine!(PGFPlotsX.PDFLATEX)
savefig(test_2d(), "pgfx-2d.png")
savefig(test_3d(), "pgfx-3d.png")

inspectdr()
savefig(test_2d(), "idr-2d.png")
# no 3D

pythonplot()
savefig(test_2d(), "pyplot-2d.png")
savefig(test_3d(), "pyplot-3d.png")

plotlyjs()
savefig(test_2d(), "plotlyjs-2d.png")
savefig(test_3d(), "plotlyjs-3d.png")

In all cases master crashes, figures show PR

• GR
  

• PGFPlotsX
  

• PythonPlot
  

• InspectDR (2D only)
  

• Plotly
  

Attribution

• I am listed in .zenodo.json (see How to get acknowledged #3503)

[BeastyBlacksmith]

Interestingly, tests fail only on ubuntu, while on my linux machine they pass. Marked as draft.

Its the GraphRecipes tests that fail, not Plots.

[ivan-boikov]

I think I found the issue. If I understood correctly, in GraphPlots annotations are constructed in the form (x, y, label, fontsize) here https://github.com/JuliaPlots/GraphRecipes.jl/blob/d11908e87e425a7c4b9da2ffd7fd709097f9134e/src/graphs.jl#L1137 which I don't think follows the documentation https://docs.juliaplots.org/stable/api/#Plots.annotate!-Tuple, it should be (x, y, text(label, fontsize)). Moreover, a label passed can be a number too (that was the case in the failed test). So process_annotation can get something like (1.2, 3.4, 1, 10) and god knows if the 3rd number is a z or a label and PR's process_annotation got confused.
Maybe the best approach would be to internally convert annotations to named tuples or structs to prevent confusion once and for all. I am not sure I can do this cleanly without breaking changes (who knows, maybe there are other recipes doing the same thing), but I'll try.
Why windows and macos tests succeeded though? There are no GraphRecipes tests on those?

And could you also answer the question in the OP please? It's important for the PR.

[BeastyBlacksmith]

it should be (x, y, text(label, fontsize))

Well, you can't do that in a recipe since text is part of Plots and not RecipesBase.

Why windows and macos tests succeeded though?

Yes, upstream tests are only run on ubuntu.

Before if lengths of annotation coordinates and annotation strings mismatched

Unfortunately we can't change that in a minor release, but one more reason more for explicit cycling, that I mentioned in #4565

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 64.51% and project coverage change: +0.31 🎉

Comparison is base (0e0f117) 90.00% compared to head (b8b7800) 90.31%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4721      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.00%   90.31%   +0.31%     
==========================================
  Files          40       40              
  Lines        8360     8727     +367     
==========================================
+ Hits         7524     7882     +358     
- Misses        836      845       +9     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/backends/pythonplot.jl	87.55% <0.00%> (+0.13%)	⬆️
src/backends/gr.jl	90.46% <50.00%> (+0.32%)	⬆️
src/components.jl	89.50% <66.66%> (-0.53%)	⬇️
src/args.jl	85.56% <100.00%> (+0.79%)	⬆️
src/backends/pgfplotsx.jl	88.18% <100.00%> (+0.43%)	⬆️

... and 28 files with indirect coverage changes

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[ivan-boikov]

Thank you for answers, cycling indeed is important. I revised the processing, it has cycling and is still compact. Also tests are passed now, so marking as ready.

[t-bltg]

LGTM

[BeastyBlacksmith]

Good job! Thank you 🙂