[Feature add] Share Axes in GeoPlot + bug fixes

[cvanelteren]

Addresses #155 and #158

[cvanelteren]

Note: Tests will fail on added tests.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 95.36153% with 34 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
ultraplot/axes/geo.py	90.03%	13 Missing and 15 partials ⚠️
ultraplot/figure.py	95.08%	1 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
ultraplot/tests/test_geographic.py	99.02%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
ultraplot/axes/base.py	94.73%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR adds a feature to share axes on geographic plots and includes bug fixes related to axis sharing and test configuration.

• Adds tests for validating shared geographic tick configurations.
• Refactors axis sharing logic in GeoAxes and related modules.
• Removes extraneous debug prints in test configuration.

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 6 out of 6 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
ultraplot/tests/test_geographic.py	Adds new tests for geographic ticks and shared axis behavior
ultraplot/tests/conftest.py	Removes debug print statements from test failure handling
ultraplot/figure.py	Updates subplot creation and axis sharing logic for GeoAxes
ultraplot/axes/shared.py	Adjusts share function signatures and minor ticker handling
ultraplot/axes/geo.py	Extensive refactor for GeoAxes: sharing, toggling ticks and gridliner labels
ultraplot/axes/base.py	Adds an _unshare method and a guard for NaN padding values

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

ultraplot/axes/geo.py:1780

• [nitpick] Consider renaming the loop variable 'object' to something like 'obj' to avoid shadowing the built-in 'object'.

for object in objects:

[cvanelteren]

Will add more tests tomorrow for codecov but it's looking good locally with a few plots showing different sizes but otherwise have high visual fidelity. Opening this up for review.

[beckermr]

I took a closer look at the image test failure:

Here is the code:

@pytest.mark.mpl_image_compare
def test_geoticks():

    lonlim = (-140, 60)
    latlim = (-10, 50)
    basemap_projection = uplt.Proj(
        "cyl",
        lonlim=lonlim,
        latlim=latlim,
        backend="basemap",
    )
    fig, ax = uplt.subplots(
        ncols=3,
        proj=(
            "cyl",  # cartopy
            "cyl",  # cartopy
            basemap_projection,  # basemap
        ),
        share=0,
    )
    settings = dict(land=True, labels=True, lonlines=20, latlines=20)
    # Shows sensible "default"; uses cartopy backend to show the grid lines with ticks
    ax[0].format(
        lonlim=lonlim,
        latlim=latlim,
        **settings,
    )

    # Add lateral ticks only
    ax[1].format(
        latticklen=True,
        gridminor=True,
        lonlim=lonlim,
        latlim=latlim,
        **settings,
    )

    ax[2].format(
        latticklen=5.0,
        lonticklen=2.0,
        grid=False,
        gridminor=False,
        **settings,
    )
    return fig

Here is a zoom of the middle panel (top is baseline, bottom is this PR):

It appears that the call to set latlim for the middle panel is now being ignored in the new version of the code in this PR. This is definitely a bug. I don't see why latlim should now be ignored.

[cvanelteren]

Fixed @beckermr :

[cvanelteren]

Not sure why the ticks are not using the full range but I cut off the edges here and it looks the same.

[cvanelteren]

weirdly enough when I do this for the basemap the yticks behave strangely. Only one appears.

[beckermr]

Two more items. Thank you so much for the good work on this PR!

[beckermr]

LGTM! Great work on this PR!

[cvanelteren]

Will draft an appropriate release to 1.5. Lots of new features 😄