Skip to content
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

Add legend to feature density maps #459

Open
atmorling opened this issue Nov 20, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Add legend to feature density maps #459

atmorling opened this issue Nov 20, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@atmorling
Copy link
Contributor

This needs some thought around the display values for the legend, the density column alone won't be very descriptive

@cisaacstern
Copy link
Collaborator

Based this blame

https://github.com/wildlife-dynamics/ecoscope-workflows/blame/4b0d970d0bc41691f703ca059049c3c4226ca1b9/examples/events/ecoscope-workflows-events-workflow/ecoscope_workflows_events_workflow/dags/jupytext.py#L436

which shows that line being added in #460, I assume perhaps your last recompile commit on #460 may have been against a local version of the spec that had some experimental inline defaults, i.e.

    legend:
       label_column: "density",
       color_column": "density_colormap"

which were compiled against in #460 but not themselves committed?

I am trying to figure out why those params are here

fd_map_layer = create_polygon_layer.partial(
geodataframe=fd_colormap,
layer_style={
"fill_color_column": "density_colormap",
"get_line_width": 0,
"opacity": 0.4,
},
legend={"label_column": "density", "color_column": "density_colormap"},

but not here

- name: Create map layer from Feature Density
id: fd_map_layer
task: create_polygon_layer
partial:
geodataframe: ${{ workflow.fd_colormap.return }}
layer_style:
fill_color_column: "density_colormap"
get_line_width: 0
opacity: 0.4

They are being dropped by the auto-recompiles in #452, and just want to make sure that's not a mistake. I think I'm convinced its not.

@cisaacstern
Copy link
Collaborator

Put another way, is the above a case of us not having this ci check #433 ?

@atmorling
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yep, that's 100% what happened 😅

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants