Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no visual difference here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this test and the other ones below have a small visible difference, but for the best
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this would be unchanged
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this test is the one exhibiting the bug (see description)
mbostock
force-pushed
the
fil/waffle-stroke
branch
from
d3f851e to
6f95f12
Compare
mbostock
force-pushed
the
fil/waffle-stroke
branch
from
6f95f12 to
76a9826
Compare
mbostock
left a comment
mbostock
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A thing I noticed is that these waffles have invisible slivers that extend the full width of the band. Related to #2132 I guess. Need more time to work on this but we probably want to simplify the polygon we’re using to render the waffle cells.
|
Yes, it explains the gradient we see at the top of the "before" image in the description. It would be nice to clean this up too. (Related: #2132) |
|
integrated in #2215 |
| .attr("d", (i) => `M${polygon[i].join("L")}Z`) | ||
| .attr("fill", (i) => `url(#${patternId}-${i})`) | ||
| .attr("stroke", this.stroke == null ? null : (i) => `url(#${patternId}-${i})`) | ||
| .attr("stroke", this.stroke == null ? null : "none") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just noting that this is visually equivalent to saying:
.attr("stroke", "none")I.e., there’s never a stroke applied to the path element, it’s just that sometimes we have to suppress it when it would otherwise be inherited from the parent G element.
2 participants
closes #2186
(to apply after #2203)