-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 229
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.
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
min_bound_range ignores lower_bound #1047
Comments
May I ask you why did you post:
? This
is rather unclear. The issue is a "bug report" for the developer. It should not be a puzzle. As for
Changes CANNOT be applied directly. Please create a PR with proposed changes. |
Sorry, I'm not a native English speaker and couldn't express myself well enough, I guess. I tried my best to collect all the information and I also, of course, read the documentation and read 'The min_bound_range option is applied "in the end"', but this is exactly what I tried to point out that it doesn't make sense in my point of view and use case. When a lower_bound is applied, this should still be the fixed lower_point, instead of having the range overwrite the lower_point. But anyway, if this is not understandable or not wanted, please excuse me and don't waste your valuable time. |
@Tarudro Hence users have to find WORKAROUNDS in cases when something cannot be achieved explicitly. |
Have you tried with |
Thanks for your suggestion. I have, indeed. This is feasible for some devices, but not for all of them. The benefit of having a min_range is that it still scales correctly when there are very big values coming. |
|
Hi,
Note the two lines The expected behaviour would be: I hope, this clarifies the problem. Regards Jörn |
As it was clearly said in Docs & explained already in this thread - the This issue will be closed soon. |
Hi, I have proposed an alternative solution, even proposed the source code change. It could be a very easy change and also updating the docs accordingly would make sense. However, after pointing it out I really didn’t feel like the feedback is appreciated, so I also gave up. I don’t have the time to setup a development environment to verify any changes I propose, unfortunately. If our problems and proposals don’t match your paradigm, just close it, sure. cheers |
This is not about "don’t match your paradigm". Well, I may leave this issue open - but it may not change things. |
Hi,
First of all, I love the card, thanks for this project and your effort!
However, I have noticed one thing that I can't really figure out and I believe it's kind of irritating as it is. (at least for my used case)
I have created mini-graph-cards to monitor my power consumptions. However, some devices have small values when in standby mode.
I've specified
lower_bound: 0
because I want to have the X axes stuck at the very bottom of the card, since I'm not expecting any negative values. Therefore a close to 0 consumption should also look like that. However, when you look at my screenshot, the "Washing Machine" doesn't look like that due to the small value scaling.
I checked the options and found the
min_bound_range:
setting.But, when I specify this, the range neglects any defined lower_bound and creates the range to positive and negative side.
I would suggest to make the following code change (I got no permissions to push it directly):
main.js
And apply the offset range only to the positive side, to keep the lower_bound.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: