[FIX] allow using symmetric maps with plotly

[Remi-Gau]

• Closes [BUG] Plot surf ROI with plotly engine cannot do symmetric colorbars #3941

Changes proposed in this pull request:

• allow using symmetric maps with plotly

[github-actions]

👋 @Remi-Gau Thanks for creating a PR!

Until this PR is ready for review, you can include the [WIP] tag in its title, or leave it as a github draft.

Please make sure it is compliant with our contributing guidelines. In particular, be sure it checks the boxes listed below.

• PR has an interpretable title.
• PR links to Github issue with mention Closes #XXXX (see our documentation on PR structure)
• Code is PEP8-compliant (see our documentation on coding style)
• Changelog or what's new entry in doc/changes/latest.rst (see our documentation on PR structure)

For new features:

• There is at least one unit test per new function / class (see our documentation on testing)
• The new feature is demoed in at least one relevant example.

For bug fixes:

• There is at least one test that would fail under the original bug conditions.

We will review it as quick as possible, feel free to ping us with questions if needed.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3942 (8e44164) into main (25e4bdd) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
Report is 10 commits behind head on main.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3942   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.76%   91.77%           
=======================================
  Files         134      134           
  Lines       15747    15751    +4     
  Branches     3283     3283           
=======================================
+ Hits        14451    14455    +4     
  Misses        752      752           
  Partials      544      544           

Flag	Coverage Δ
macos-latest_3.10	91.68% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
macos-latest_3.11	91.68% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
macos-latest_3.8	91.64% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
macos-latest_3.9	91.64% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
ubuntu-latest_3.10	91.68% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
ubuntu-latest_3.11	91.68% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
ubuntu-latest_3.8	91.64% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
ubuntu-latest_3.9	91.64% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
windows-latest_3.10	91.62% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
windows-latest_3.11	91.62% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
windows-latest_3.8	91.59% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
windows-latest_3.9	91.59% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
nilearn/plotting/surf_plotting.py	95.48% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[bthirion]

LGTM otherwise.

[bthirion]

LGTM, thx

[ymzayek]

Another solution would be to just remove symmetric_cmap=False from the call to plot_surf. This is the default of the function so it shouldn't have any behavior effects if symmetric_cmap is not passed to plot_sur_roi and if it is passed it will be unpacked from the kwargs and passed to plot_sruf

[Remi-Gau]

Another solution would be to just remove symmetric_cmap=False from the call to plot_surf. This is the default of the function so it shouldn't have any behavior effects if symmetric_cmap is not passed to plot_sur_roi and if it is passed it will be unpacked from the kwargs and passed to plot_sruf

Silly me. I had not even checked.
Sounds simpler and more elegant.
Will check the other parameters just to be sure.
But won't fix before tomorrow. Am AFK today.

[Remi-Gau]

Another solution would be to just remove symmetric_cmap=False from the call to plot_surf. This is the default of the function so it shouldn't have any behavior effects if symmetric_cmap is not passed to plot_sur_roi and if it is passed it will be unpacked from the kwargs and passed to plot_sruf

implemted your suggestion instead

[Remi-Gau]

Added a default argument for avg_method that was implicitly passed to to plot_surf (but with a different default than that of plot_surf) and could lead to similar problems as for symmetric_cmap.

This is technically a change of the API in the doc though it could always be passed as kwarg. Should we mention it in an "added in version" ? I would say no but this is not a hill I will die on.

[bthirion]

Maybe not indeed (no strong feeling on my side.)