[tree] Don't allow tiny x-axis domains #909
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Don't allow tiny x-axis domains -- e.g. if zoomed into a polytomy where the divergence values are all tiny, then we don't want to display the tree topology. The threshold for tiny is set here arbitrarily at 1E-8, however this will become problematic if we get eukaryotic genomes in nextstrain.
jameshadfield
temporarily deployed
to
auspice-x-axis-bug-qeajzwu4gpi
emmahodcroft
approved these changes
Feb 26, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Don't allow tiny x-axis domains -- e.g. if zoomed into a polytomy where the divergence values are all tiny, then we don't want to display the tree topology.
The threshold for tiny is set here arbitrarily at 1E-8, however this will become problematic if we get eukaryotic genomes in nextstrain.
Added the TB dataset so that we can test that in review apps.
Closes #901
Looks good for rectangular trees. Radial / unrooted don't look great, but that's not a regression and needs more work in the future.