Rotate teapot for flip_z() doctest example

[adeak]

The flip_z() doctest result looks like this:

The teapots look identical because the xy plane in this configuration is parallel to the symmetry plane of the teapot.

If we first rotate the teapot around x we get a more meaningful result:

This makes the test slightly different from flip_x() and flip_y(), but it's probably more important to have the example be useful in isolation.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2885 (f8d03a7) into main (6bdedb7) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2885   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.04%   94.04%           
=======================================
  Files          76       76           
  Lines       16428    16428           
=======================================
  Hits        15449    15449           
  Misses        979      979           

[akaszynski]

LGTM. I thought the labeler was fixed...

[akaszynski]

LGTM. I thought the labeler was fixed...

Actually, seems like this fails for forks... @tkoyama010, let's find a way to disable this for forks.

[adeak]

At worst I can start using feature branches on the main repo. Vast majority of PRs seems to come from members anyway.

[akaszynski]

At worst I can start using feature branches on the main repo. Vast majority of PRs seems to come from members anyway.

I wouldn't want to discourage forks. Let's get it working for forks.

[tkoyama010]

@akaszynski Could you please check that the setting is the follwing?

[akaszynski]

@akaszynski Could you please check that the setting is the follwing?

@banesullivan, are we fine with upping the scope on GITHUB_TOKEN? I doubt that we'll run into issues, but it's an additional security risk.

[tkoyama010]

I reverted the trigger of labeling which is dropping in #2877.

[banesullivan]

@banesullivan, are we fine with upping the scope on GITHUB_TOKEN? I doubt that we'll run into issues, but it's an additional security risk.

I'm comfortable with this, just so long as we aren't using a Personal Access Token (PAT) which can have elevated permissions

[akaszynski]

Still LGTM.

[akaszynski]

@akaszynski Could you please check that the setting is the follwing?

It indeed is set.

[tkoyama010]

LGTM