Skip to content

AutoSkip in update #6355

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Sep 7, 2019
Merged

AutoSkip in update #6355

merged 5 commits into from
Sep 7, 2019

Conversation

@benmccann
Copy link
Contributor

@benmccann benmccann commented Jun 24, 2019

No description provided.

@benmccann benmccann force-pushed the autoskip-update branch 2 times, most recently from 28d3df8 to 90b7a47 Compare June 24, 2019 04:14
kurkle
kurkle reviewed Jun 24, 2019
View reviewed changes
@benmccann benmccann force-pushed the autoskip-update branch 8 times, most recently from 90d4cea to fed37b6 Compare June 27, 2019 17:02
kurkle
kurkle reviewed Jun 27, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@kurkle kurkle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Commented just some thoughts, nothing really important.

kurkle
kurkle reviewed Jul 1, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@kurkle kurkle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm still thinking it would be better to let core.layouts set the dimensions after update and do the autoSkip in _configure (function name could maybe be better).

@benmccann
Copy link
Contributor Author

benmccann commented Jul 1, 2019 •
edited
Loading

_configure is called twice, which is okay for setting simple properties, but I'm not sure we'd want to call more complicated methods from it, which could be more expensive. Also, it'd give the wrong results if you skip too many ticks the first time it's called unless you also called buildTicks again or stored both the skipped and unskipped ticks

@benmccann benmccann requested review from etimberg, kurkle and nagix July 2, 2019 23:27
@benmccann
Copy link
Contributor Author

benmccann commented Jul 19, 2019

I've rebased this PR

@benmccann benmccann mentioned this pull request Aug 2, 2019
Closed
@benmccann
Copy link
Contributor Author

benmccann commented Aug 8, 2019

@etimberg @nagix @kurkle any additional thoughts?

kurkle
kurkle requested changes Aug 12, 2019
View reviewed changes
@kurkle
Copy link
Member

kurkle commented Aug 13, 2019

Needs to be rebased. Also I don't like the todo. I'd remove it (or at least add something about v3 so new devs don't waste their time doing it in v2)

@benmccann
Copy link
Contributor Author

benmccann commented Aug 13, 2019

Thanks for taking a look. I've added v3 to the todo

kurkle
kurkle previously approved these changes Aug 13, 2019
View reviewed changes
@snyk-bot snyk-bot mentioned this pull request Apr 1, 2020
Open
This was referenced Apr 14, 2020
Open
Open
exwm pushed a commit to exwm/Chart.js that referenced this pull request Apr 30, 2021
@benmccann @etimberg
AutoSkip in update (chartjs#6355)
7d4f3e2 
* AutoSkip in update

* Address review comments

* Add v3 to TODO

* Address review comments

* Remove unrelated code cleanup
This was referenced Jun 1, 2021
Closed
Merged
Closed
Open
Closed
Open
Open
This was referenced Jul 5, 2021
Closed
Open
This was referenced Jul 27, 2021
Closed
Merged
Merged
This was referenced Oct 14, 2021
Merged
Closed
@jw jw mentioned this pull request Jan 17, 2022
Open
1 task
This was referenced Jan 21, 2022
Merged
Closed
This was referenced Feb 4, 2022
Closed
Closed
This was referenced Mar 7, 2022
Open
Open
Open
Merged
1 task
This was referenced Nov 29, 2022
Closed
Closed
Closed
1 task
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@etimberg etimberg etimberg approved these changes

@kurkle kurkle kurkle approved these changes

@simonbrunel simonbrunel simonbrunel left review comments

@nagix nagix Awaiting requested review from nagix

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@benmccann @kurkle @etimberg @simonbrunel