V2.0 Dev Feature Horizontal Bar

[potatopeelings]

As mentioned in #73.

I cleaned up the code a bit (verified that it still works). Cheers!

[potatopeelings]

I think I've fessed up a couple of variables. Will update in a bit.

[coveralls]

Changes Unknown when pulling 35754fd on potatopeelings:v2.0-dev-feature-horizontal-bar into * on chartjs:v2.0-dev*.

[coveralls]

Changes Unknown when pulling be62657 on potatopeelings:v2.0-dev-feature-horizontal-bar into * on chartjs:v2.0-dev*.

[tannerlinsley]

This looks pretty dang good man! @etimberg What do you think?

[derekperkins]

Do negative values work?
On May 2, 2016 12:36 PM, "Tanner Linsley" notifications@github.com wrote:

This looks pretty dang good man! @etimberg https://github.com/etimberg
What do you think?

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2434 (comment)

[etimberg]

Looks good. Would love to get some tests on it? if @potatopeelings can't, could you do that @tannerlinsley ?

[potatopeelings]

@derekperkins - yep, negative values work (not that I did anything special for it :-)). Fiddle from an earlier version - http://jsfiddle.net/0y8mnma1/.

@etimberg - I haven't written tests for chart libraries before unfortunately. If there's anything else I can do (example files?), am glad to give it a shot. Cheers!

[tannerlinsley]

I might have time later to put up some basic tests. I'm still not familiar with the new testing strategy, but there's no better time to check it out than now. We'll see how my day goes.

[etimberg]

Ok, I like the fiddle. I am +1 to merge this.

If we do merge, could I propose the following:

1. Merge
2. Add sample file
3. Add test coverage
4. 2.1 release?

[tannerlinsley]

Yep, I think this would round out the 2.1 release.

[tannerlinsley]

I was wondering though, do you think instead of creating a new controller, we use the existing bar controller and just make it compatible for the vertical position? I'm not sure. Just came to my mind.

[etimberg]

That would work, but most functions would have to change. An alternative is to derive obw from the other to keep duplication to a minimum

[etimberg]

It also needs it's own default config which is better done with a new type

[etimberg]

Just realized this is going into v2.0-dev and not master

[potatopeelings]

Should I have branched from master instead? Sorry! Let me know if that's the case and I can raise a new PR.

[etimberg]

Master would be preferred

[potatopeelings]

Sure. Will get it done after a few hours.

[etimberg]

thanks @potatopeelings

[swbdev]

Just checked the logarithmic scale function in the fiddle. It seems to have some problems. Btw. is it possible to change the labels of the axes to normal integer values when logarithmic scale is applied? (check the screens)

Edit:
My fault. Log scale seems to work great:

[etimberg]

@swbdev you need to add the following to the logarithmic scale config. The default position for the log scale is on the left

position: 'bottom'

[potatopeelings]

@etimberg - created a new PR for master (#2448). Cheers!

[etimberg]

Great! Closing this one