You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently the rect mark is a bit pedantic regarding band scales — it generally requires that you specify x1, x2, y1, y2 explicitly. So in a situation like this, you see nothing:
A related question is whether we could automatically infer the band scale for y (rather than the default point). That would also be necessary for the rect to appear.
Another possibility, to at least show something that maybe guides someone to a better outcome, would be to apply default negative insets in the case whether the rect would otherwise have zero width or height.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Currently the rect mark is a bit pedantic regarding band scales — it generally requires that you specify x1, x2, y1, y2 explicitly. So in a situation like this, you see nothing:
You have to switch to barX to see what you likely intend:
A related question is whether we could automatically infer the band scale for y (rather than the default point). That would also be necessary for the rect to appear.
Another possibility, to at least show something that maybe guides someone to a better outcome, would be to apply default negative insets in the case whether the rect would otherwise have zero width or height.
Notebook: https://observablehq.com/d/87107ffe90ae73be
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: