Closed benloh closed 10 months ago
@benloh It looks like fading is now going to 100% transparent rather than the field in the view?
Also, hidden edges are still appearing in the node panel on left, and the edges table
Also just noticed this funny side effect when testing ... the scaling buttons for the graph need to be moved back a layer?
fading is now going to 100% transparent rather than the field in the view?
Sorry. Bad logic was interfering with counting. Should be fixed now.
the scaling buttons for the graph need to be moved back a layer?
Fixed.
hidden edges are still appearing in the node panel on left, and the edges table
Do you mean that hidden edges should not show up in the node editor/node editor at all? So for all intents and purposes if something is filtered out it should never show up in any editor? Right now the editors refer to the full dataset rather than the filtered dataset (the rationale was that you still want to be able to view and edit a filtered node/edge).
Sorry, I meant they should be faded in highlight and removed in remove, and that functionality is now restored with the recent fix - presumably the bad logic was effecting both appearances. However, I just noticed that now even though many of the nodes / edges may be hidden, they are counted in the "showing" count. So if you see 5 visible nodes and 115 semi-transparent ones, it says 120 still because they are present. Is it possible to have that say 5? In an ideal world maybe it changes to say "Highlighting 5/120"? The other two displays can maintain "Showing".
Is it possible to have that say 5? In an ideal world maybe it changes to say "Highlighting 5/120"? The other two displays can maintain "Showing".
I take that back - because the tab name is set in the template, we should stick with showing. However, if we can report just those that are fully visible and not the ones faded that'd be great. Thanks!
Sorry, I guess this logic is screwier than I thought. Nodes and edges were using different thresholds for fading. I think the node visual fading was correct but the count was wrong. I think this should be fixed now.
Addresses #84
Summary Statistics
Additional Fixes