(fullTrace)
| 1062 | fullLayout._transformModules = []; |
| 1063 | |
| 1064 | function pushModule(fullTrace) { |
| 1065 | dataOut.push(fullTrace); |
| 1066 | |
| 1067 | var _module = fullTrace._module; |
| 1068 | if(!_module) return; |
| 1069 | |
| 1070 | Lib.pushUnique(modules, _module); |
| 1071 | if(fullTrace.visible === true) Lib.pushUnique(visibleModules, _module); |
| 1072 | Lib.pushUnique(basePlotModules, fullTrace._module.basePlotModule); |
| 1073 | cnt++; |
| 1074 | |
| 1075 | // TODO: do we really want color not to increment for explicitly invisible traces? |
| 1076 | // This logic is weird, but matches previous behavior: traces that you explicitly |
| 1077 | // set to visible:false do not increment the color, but traces WE determine to be |
| 1078 | // empty or invalid (and thus set to visible:false) DO increment color. |
| 1079 | // I kind of think we should just let all traces increment color, visible or not. |
| 1080 | // see mock: axes-autotype-empty vs. a test of restyling visible: false that |
| 1081 | // I can't find right now... |
| 1082 | if(fullTrace._input.visible !== false) colorCnt++; |
| 1083 | } |
| 1084 | |
| 1085 | var carpetIndex = {}; |
| 1086 | var carpetDependents = []; |
no outgoing calls
no test coverage detected
searching dependent graphs…