Failures of the tests can be ignored btw -- docs are fixed on a different PR.

As of commit 677aec2, I'm not quite following your logic, but I don't think issue 517 has been resolved. The extent messing up may not be caused by "label-padding expansion", and the bug was recently introduced into the code.

This might be the same bug, so I posted here.

import ultraplot as pplt
print("Ultraplot version:", pplt.__version__)
fig,ax=pplt.subplot(proj='cyl')
ax.format(labels='both', ticklen=.5)

Set ticklen override labels='both'.

Whwn setting extend through format, a small space will be added to ensure that the labels will be visible. It is a thing that was present in proplot, and caused some issues for users in the past. When extent is used now, it will override it. I can do some testing to see if we should get rid of the epsilon all together or not.

This might be the same bug, so I posted here.

import ultraplot as pplt

print("Ultraplot version:", pplt.__version__)

fig,ax=pplt.subplot(proj='cyl')

ax.format(labels='both', ticklen=.5)

Set ticklen override labels='both'.

What's the issue here?

Ah I see the issue indeed -- sorry just woke up. That is a separate issue.

Whwn setting extend through format, a small space will be added to ensure that the labels will be visible. It is a thing that was present in proplot, and caused some issues for users in the past. When extent is used now, it will override it. I can do some testing to see if we should get rid of the epsilon all together or not.

Oh, I see. I didn't notice the small space added for label visiblity. What I meant was some format stuff caused the extent changed a lot, and format(lonlim=.., latlim=..) didn't respect the extent.

The code you provided in that issue will now respect it after you set with extent but still uses the default epsilon stuff for when format is used

More succintly your code now produces:

 python test.py
After set extent using lonlim and latlim: (0.22999999999999998, 2.42, 0.31000000000000005, 2.4699999999999998)
After set extent using set_extent       : (0.73, 1.92, 0.81, 1.97)
After format something other than extent: (0.73, 1.92, 0.81, 1.97)

Yes, the result shows exactly it's not.

# %%
import ultraplot as pplt
fig, ax = pplt.subplot(proj='cyl')
ax.format(lonlim=[0.73, 1.92], latlim=[0.81, 1.97])
print(pplt.__version__)
print("After set extent using lonlim and latlim:",ax.get_extent())

the result is:

1.70.1.dev61+g677aec2e7
After set extent using lonlim and latlim: (0.22999999999999998, 2.42, 0.31000000000000005, 2.4699999999999998)

while it should be : (0.73, 1.92, 0.81, 1.97)

As I indicated above the default formatting will add this epsilon if you add it through format. What this PR does is respect the limits after a set_extent is called -- it does not alter the behavior of the epsilon being added when called using .format. A change like that would affects users that may prefer the epsilon being added. We could add an epsilon parameter together with an rc to override this.

As the doc indicats, ax.format(lonlim=(x1, x2), latlim=(y1, y2) should get the geoax extent as (x1, x2, y1, y2), but it's not now.

And this issue doesn't come from proplot, though I haven't test every version, but it's recently. For example, in ultraplot v1.66.0, the issue is not there yet. Might came from v1.70.0

Ok @gepcel aligned them now

After set extent using lonlim and latlim: (0.73, 1.92, 0.81, 1.97)
After set extent using set_extent       : (0.73, 1.92, 0.81, 1.97)
After format something other than extent: (0.73, 1.92, 0.81, 1.97)