-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
feat: Meshes #32
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feat: Meshes #32
Conversation
Defines how 2D view NDC are mapped to vectors in 3D space
In the pursuit of a single source of truth, let's resort to the projection matrix (when/if possible?) for this.
For some reason, if I don't do this, the Matrix3D constructor RESURRECTS some previous matrix I used in a previous test
Thanks to @tlambert03 for the suggestion. Could probably be cleaned up further, but at least this is a step in the right direction!
Eventually, we'll want to compute grids ourselves on the model side, I think, but for now this works
...man, this feels so good
It's worse :)
Notably, this limits the type of pygfx-specific interaction available. But we need a scenex version of this anyways - planning to implement the beginnings of this with events
Still need to add that functionality to child nodes...somehow :)
The main thing to avoid here is a View layout larger than a canvas, as that can cause problems in Pygfx
Some airport fixes coming around from me using my laptop screen for once :)
Let's just keep wx out of the CI linting...
I just want the tests passing man
Currently being hit by not having this with wxPython
This is a clean solution for implementing "on-leave" behavior. In NDV's case, it's needed to clear the hover info when the cursor leaves the image.
scenex image/volume nodes have pixel centers at integer coordinates. Our math needs to reflect that
Tried my best to explain via comments why I think it's the right choice
Also needed for ndv :)
Not much is supported...YET!
I don't really understand it though :)
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is ❌ Your patch check has failed because the patch coverage (80.19%) is below the target coverage (85.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #32 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 80.72% 71.82% -8.91%
==========================================
Files 42 54 +12
Lines 1520 2509 +989
==========================================
+ Hits 1227 1802 +575
- Misses 293 707 +414 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
This PR adds in a
Mesh
node type.Builds atop #28 (since I added logic necessary for events, bounding boxes, etc.) - that PR really should be merged first!