-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 355
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Warn on extrakws #4861
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Warn on extrakws #4861
Conversation
In principle I am on board with the idea, but e.g. the PGFPlotsX backend makes deliberate use of this as in it passes all extra keywords to the backend and they usually just work. |
We could just ignore this check for PGF plots, it could just support all of them. I understand that you might wanna add more tex there. |
Yeah, if we make the check use a predicate function, that could just return true in that case |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #4861 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 89.77% 89.58% -0.19%
==========================================
Files 40 40
Lines 8780 8787 +7
==========================================
- Hits 7882 7872 -10
- Misses 898 915 +17 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Description
Consider a case from https://docs.juliaplots.org/stable/backends/#Fine-tuning
Upon mispelling of any kws it is interpretted as an extra_kw which leads to silent ignoring of kws:
just plots.
Now it outputs:
Granted this is a crutch as I just look over a list of predefined kws, but in principle this mechanism could be more sophisiticated per backend. What you think?