Re: AspectRatio Patches [changeset]

[logari81]

On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 23:06 -0400, Ben Abbott wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:54 PM, logari81 wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 05:53 -0400, Ben Abbott wrote:
> >> On Nov 1, 2010, at 3:54 AM, Konstantinos Poulios wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Ben Abbott <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>> 
> > ...
> >>>> 
> >>>> I was unable to apply your patch.
> >>>> 
> >>>> $ patch -p1 < /Users/bpabbott/Desktop/octave_aspectratios_2.patch
> >>>> patching file src/graphics.cc
> >>>> Hunk #2 FAILED at 3911.
> >>>> Hunk #3 FAILED at 3927.
> >>>> Hunk #4 FAILED at 4575.
> >>>> 3 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/graphics.cc.rej
> >>>> 
> >>>> Can you generate a mercurial changeset against the current sources?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Ben
> >>> 
> >>> Ups, sorry for the inconvenience. This was of course the wrong file. I
> >>> send you the right one in the present mail.
> >>> 
> >>> Kostas
> >>> <aspectratios2.changeset>
> >> 
> >> With this changeset, I'm not getting the correct result for "axis equal". 
> >> See the LL plot for ...
> >> 
> >>    demo ("axis", 1)
> >> 
> >> Also, the 5th demo gives me an error.
> >> 
> >>    demo ("axis", 1)
> >> 
> >> axis example 5:
> >> clf
> >> axis image
> >> x=0:0.1:10;
> >> plot(x,sin(x))
> >> axis image
> >> title("image")
> >> 
> >> error: __actual_axis_position__: quotient: nonconformant arguments (op1 is 
> >> 1x2, op2 is 1x3)
> >> error: called from:
> >> error:   
> >> /Users/bpabbott/Development/mercurial/local_clone/scripts/plot/private/__actual_axis_position__.m
> >>  at line 65, column 33
> >> error:   
> >> /Users/bpabbott/Development/mercurial/local_clone/scripts/plot/__go_draw_axes__.m
> >>  at line 71, column 9
> >> error:   
> >> /Users/bpabbott/Development/mercurial/local_clone/scripts/plot/__go_draw_figure__.m
> >>  at line 86, column 17
> >> error:   
> >> /Users/bpabbott/Development/mercurial/local_clone/scripts/plot/gnuplot_drawnow.m
> >>  at line 90, column 5
> >> error: input: reading user-input failed!
> >> error:   
> >> /Users/bpabbott/Development/mercurial/local_clone/scripts/testfun/demo.m 
> >> at line 110, column 7
> >> 
> >> Ben
> >> 
> >> p.s. we dropped off the list, so I've reattached you changeset, in case 
> >> others want to take a look.
> >> 
> > 
> > Hi Ben.
> > 
> > Concerning the error in __actual_axis_position__ it seems that an older
> > bug has been triggered through my changes. Anyway the part of the code
> > where the error occurs seems to be redundant as it tries to recalculate
> > the plotboxaspectratio that we have already calculated in graphics.cc .
> > So I believe this calculation should be better removed instead of been
> > fixed. The changeset in the file "aspectratios3.changeset" removes this
> > redundant code.
> > 
> > After this, the changeset "aspectratios4.changeset" which is an updated
> > version of "aspectratios2.changeset" can be applied as well.
> > 
> > On my system with this two changesets (3 and 4) applied all axis demos
> > worked well with the gnuplot backend.
> > 
> > For demo("axis",1) I couldn't notice any unexpected behavior. Could you
> > test these two patches and attach some screenshot if you find any error?
> > 
> > Thank you in advance
> > 
> > Kostas
> > <aspectratios3.changeset><aspectratios4.changeset>
> 
> Both demo 1 and 5 still have problems with axis("equal"). This command should 
> produce an equal number of pixels per data unit for the x/y/z axes.
> 
> I've attached pdfs illustrating what I see for Matlab and for Octave (the 
> gnuplot backend). Using the FLTK backend, I get the correct result for the 
> first demo, but the 5th one gives a blank figure window.
> 
> Ben
> 

Hi Ben,

I cannot reproduce the problems shown in your pdfs. For me with
"aspectratios3.changeset" and "aspectratios4.changeset" applied the
demos 1 and 5 give the results shown in the attached files.

Demo 5 doesn't work with the fltk backend, but it didn't work before my
changes (11159) neither. I will try to fix this problem later but
actually it shouldn't be related to these patches.

The only difference in 223 subplot of demo1 between matlab and my
current patched version is ylim. But this is another old problem.
Actually comparing 11159 with my current version with respect to demos 1
and 5 there are no differences at all.

Could you compare a clean build of 11159 with a clean build of 11167
+aspectratios3.changeset+aspectratio4.changeset ? In case that you can
confirm that the all demos behave the same, I would propose that you
apply the last two patches and wait for my fixes for the rest of the
issues.

Best regards,

Kostas

Demo1-fltk.png
Description: PNG image

Demo1-gnuplot.png
Description: PNG image

Demo5-gnuplot.png
Description: PNG image