Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this need some sort of image test as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Previously it would error out, so I added this just as a smoke test to make sure it doesn't. The functionality should be sufficiently tested by the other image test.
I mean, I could of course add this to the existing image test (just being lazy here); if people find it necessary, let me know.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Up to you if you think this will keep it from getting broken is the only reason we have tests
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I'd say this is sufficient to test what's being changed here. Of course one could argue that in general we do not test all of the possible combinations of parameters, and for each with and without contrained_layout, etc...
6898022 to
03c88e8
Compare
![MeeseeksDev[bot]](https://github.githubassets.com/images/gravatars/gravatar-user-420.png){kind=avatar}
…020-on-v3.1.x Backport PR #15020 on branch v3.1.x (Let connectionpatch be drawn on figure level)
3 participants
PR Summary
Previously adding a ConnectionPatch to a figure as
fig.add_artist(ConnectionPatch(..))would fail with an error (error shown in #8744 (comment)).However it would be good to be able to use ConnectionPatch on a figure level because
Thereby closes #8744 in the sense that we would advise users to use
fig.add_artistin such case.Documentation and examples for that would be part of #14957
PR Checklist