Merged
Conversation
If the CPT goes from 0 to 100 in steps of 10 then -Li normally labels the first color 0-10 and the last 90-100. WIth upper case i those two are labelled < 10 and > 90 instead, thus includes values outside the CPT range.
joa-quim
approved these changes
Dec 30, 2023
Member
|
Yes, looks good, and yes, dshould be |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
If a CPT goes from 0 to 100 in steps of 10 then -Li normally labels the first color 0-10 and the last 90-100. With upper case I those two are labelled < 10 and > 90 instead, thus includes values outside the CPT range. In addition, the PR attempts to adjust the default panel size to the longer AAA-BBB annotations. See this form post for the issue. Here is what -Li and -LI look like. Unlike the poster in the forum, I don't think we want <= since the previous is 10-20 so <= 10 seems wrong to me.
Do you think this is a useful directive, @joa-quim ?