Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Incorrect conversion of number to boolean #5209

Merged
merged 7 commits into from Jul 29, 2018
Merged

Incorrect conversion of number to boolean #5209

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
7a6183c
Incorrect conversion of number to boolean
teroman Jan 30, 2018
2629677
Update scale.linearbase.js
teroman May 25, 2018
fd7f051
Update scale.linear.tests.js
teroman May 25, 2018
a5740e0
Update scale.linear.tests.js
teroman May 25, 2018
998840c
Update scale.linear.tests.js
teroman Jun 19, 2018
b880921
Update scale.linear.tests.js
teroman Jun 19, 2018
a802fb1
Update scale.linearbase.js
teroman Jul 12, 2018
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/scales/scale.linearbase.js
View file
Open in desktop
Expand Up @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ function generateTicks(generationOptions, dataRange) {
var niceMax = Math.ceil(dataRange.max / spacing) * spacing;

// If min, max and stepSize is set and they make an evenly spaced scale use it.
if (generationOptions.min && generationOptions.max && generationOptions.stepSize) {
if (generationOptions.min !== undefined && generationOptions.max !== undefined && generationOptions.stepSize !== undefined) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is it wise to also check for NaN, infinite values, or values of other types. Perhaps if (!isNaN(generationOptions.min) && isFinite(generationOptions.min) ... )

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I feel that if we were going to check for those values we should probably log an error or throw an exception or somehow tell the user they've passed in invalid values rather than just silently ignoring the parameters. And maybe we should have a single method to validate user options called in the constructor or something rather than placing that code here

But in any case I feel it's quite unlikely for a user to set their options to Infinity, so I'm not sure I would require it before merging this PR. It would be a nice thing to do and I wouldn't object to validating user options, but this seems like a positive change even without that further improvement, so I don't want to block this PR on it necessarily

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

At least we could check for undefined and null since setting null is quite common to ignore an option:

if (!helpers.isNullOrUndef(generationOptions.min) &&
    !helpers.isNullOrUndef(generationOptions.max) &&
    !helpers.isNullOrUndef(generationOptions.stepSize)  {
    // ...
}

// If very close to our whole number, use it.
if (helpers.almostWhole((generationOptions.max - generationOptions.min) / generationOptions.stepSize, spacing / 1000)) {
niceMin = generationOptions.min;
Expand Down