Add highlighting feature for data elements by edmundmiller · Pull Request #30 · edmundmiller/altair-upset

edmundmiller · 2025-11-12T00:35:46Z

No description provided.

Add a new `highlight` parameter to `UpSetAltair()` that allows users to programmatically highlight specific intersections without requiring interactive hover. Features: - highlight="least": highlights the smallest intersection - highlight="greatest": highlights the largest intersection - highlight=<index>: highlights a specific intersection by index (0-based) - highlight=[indices]: highlights multiple intersections - highlight=None: default hover behavior (unchanged) This addresses the need to specify which sets to highlight in static visualizations or when creating non-interactive charts. Added comprehensive tests and documentation examples demonstrating all highlighting modes.

Replace superficial "does it exist" tests with proper validation tests that verify the CORRECT intersections are highlighted. Changes: - test_highlight_least: now verifies the highlighted intersection has the actual minimum count - test_highlight_greatest: now verifies the highlighted intersection has the actual maximum count - test_highlight_specific_index: now verifies the correct intersection_id is selected for the given index - test_highlight_multiple_indices: now verifies all requested indices map to the correct intersection_ids These tests would now catch bugs like: - Swapped least/greatest logic - Off-by-one errors in indexing - Wrong intersection being highlighted - Using degree instead of count for min/max

Improvements: - Extract _determine_highlighted_intersections() helper function for better testability and code organization - Use Literal types for type safety (only "least" and "greatest" allowed) - Reduce main function complexity from ~330 lines to ~300 lines - Make highlight determination logic more reusable and maintainable No functional changes - all tests pass.

claude · 2025-11-12T00:36:01Z

Claude encountered an error —— View job

I'll analyze this and get back to you.

Copilot

Pull Request Overview

This pull request adds a programmatic highlighting feature to UpSet plots, allowing users to automatically highlight specific intersections based on size ("least"/"greatest"), single index, or multiple indices, as an alternative to the default interactive hover behavior.

Key changes:

Added highlight parameter to UpSetAltair function with support for multiple highlight modes
Implemented _determine_highlighted_intersections helper function to compute which intersections to highlight
Added comprehensive test coverage for all highlight modes and validation

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 8 out of 13 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

File	Description
`altair_upset/upset.py`	Added `highlight` parameter and `_determine_highlighted_intersections` function for programmatic intersection highlighting
`tests/test_advanced_features.py`	Added 11 test cases covering all highlight modes and error conditions
`docs/examples/advanced_features.rst`	Added documentation with examples for each highlight mode
Snapshot JSON files	Updated parameter/view names due to internal changes (param_23→param_33, view_45→view_65, etc.)

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2025-11-12T00:37:52Z

+        if highlight < len(intersections):
+            return [intersections.iloc[highlight]["intersection_id"]]
+        return []
+    else:  # isinstance(highlight, list)
+        return [
+            intersections.iloc[i]["intersection_id"]
+            for i in highlight
+            if i < len(intersections)


When an integer index is out of bounds, the function silently returns an empty list. This could lead to confusing behavior where no intersection is highlighted without any indication of why. Consider raising an IndexError or ValueError with a descriptive message instead.

Suggested change

if highlight < len(intersections):

return [intersections.iloc[highlight]["intersection_id"]]

return []

else: # isinstance(highlight, list)

return [

intersections.iloc[i]["intersection_id"]

for i in highlight

if i < len(intersections)

if 0 <= highlight < len(intersections):

return [intersections.iloc[highlight]["intersection_id"]]

raise IndexError(

f"Highlight index {highlight} is out of bounds for intersections of length {len(intersections)}."

)

else: # isinstance(highlight, list)

invalid_indices = [i for i in highlight if not (0 <= i < len(intersections))]

if invalid_indices:

raise IndexError(

f"Highlight indices {invalid_indices} are out of bounds for intersections of length {len(intersections)}."

)

return [

intersections.iloc[i]["intersection_id"]

for i in highlight

Copilot · 2025-11-12T00:37:53Z

+        return [
+            intersections.iloc[i]["intersection_id"]
+            for i in highlight
+            if i < len(intersections)


When a list contains out-of-bounds indices, they are silently filtered out. This could cause confusion if a user expects all specified intersections to be highlighted. Consider raising an error if any index is out of bounds, or at least logging a warning.

Suggested change

return [

intersections.iloc[i]["intersection_id"]

for i in highlight

if i < len(intersections)

out_of_bounds = [i for i in highlight if i < 0 or i >= len(intersections)]

if out_of_bounds:

raise ValueError(

f"The following indices are out of bounds for intersections (valid range: 0 to {len(intersections)-1}): {out_of_bounds}"

)

return [

intersections.iloc[i]["intersection_id"]

for i in highlight

Copilot · 2025-11-12T00:37:53Z

+        (p for p in params
+         if "select" in p and "fields" in p["select"]
+         and "intersection_id" in p["select"]["fields"]
+         and "value" in p),


[nitpick] The generator expression spans multiple lines without proper indentation continuation. Consider formatting it consistently across all test functions or extracting it into a helper function to reduce code duplication (appears in lines 236-240, 282-286, 327-331, 367-371).

Address Copilot feedback from PR #30 to improve error handling: 1. Raise IndexError for out-of-bounds single index (was silent failure) - Before: highlight=999 → silently returns empty list - After: highlight=999 → raises IndexError with clear message 2. Raise ValueError if any list indices are out of bounds (was silent filtering) - Before: highlight=[0, 1, 999] → silently ignores 999 - After: highlight=[0, 1, 999] → raises ValueError listing invalid indices 3. Extract test helper function to reduce code duplication - Added _get_color_selection_param() to eliminate repeated code - Improves test maintainability and readability These changes make the API more Pythonic by failing explicitly rather than silently, helping users catch mistakes early.

claude · 2025-11-12T02:51:23Z

Claude encountered an error —— View job

I'll analyze this and get back to you.

Copilot

Pull Request Overview

Copilot reviewed 8 out of 13 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

claude · 2025-11-16T18:34:27Z

Claude encountered an error —— View job

I'll analyze this and get back to you.

claude · 2025-11-16T18:36:53Z

Claude encountered an error —— View job

I'll analyze this and get back to you.

claude · 2025-11-16T18:43:44Z

Claude Code is working…

I'll analyze this and get back to you.

View job run

Address Copilot feedback from PR #30 to improve error handling: 1. Raise IndexError for out-of-bounds single index (was silent failure) - Before: highlight=999 → silently returns empty list - After: highlight=999 → raises IndexError with clear message 2. Raise ValueError if any list indices are out of bounds (was silent filtering) - Before: highlight=[0, 1, 999] → silently ignores 999 - After: highlight=[0, 1, 999] → raises ValueError listing invalid indices 3. Extract test helper function to reduce code duplication - Added _get_color_selection_param() to eliminate repeated code - Improves test maintainability and readability These changes make the API more Pythonic by failing explicitly rather than silently, helping users catch mistakes early.

claude added 3 commits November 11, 2025 23:05

edmundmiller requested a review from Copilot November 12, 2025 00:35

edmundmiller self-assigned this Nov 12, 2025

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of edmundmiller November 12, 2025 00:36 View session

Copilot finished reviewing on behalf of edmundmiller November 12, 2025 00:36

Copilot AI reviewed Nov 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

edmundmiller had a problem deploying to testpypi November 12, 2025 02:51 — with GitHub Actions Failure

edmundmiller requested a review from Copilot November 15, 2025 18:28

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of edmundmiller November 15, 2025 18:29 View session

Copilot finished reviewing on behalf of edmundmiller November 15, 2025 18:29

Copilot AI reviewed Nov 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

edmundmiller had a problem deploying to testpypi November 16, 2025 18:34 — with GitHub Actions Failure

docs: update CHANGELOG for programmatic highlighting feature

00e7378

edmundmiller force-pushed the claude/add-highlight-dots-bars-011CV2voFCuSPAJYUHjLRjpD branch from 03e94da to 00e7378 Compare November 16, 2025 18:36

edmundmiller had a problem deploying to testpypi November 16, 2025 18:37 — with GitHub Actions Failure

style: fix line length linting errors

92d1668

edmundmiller had a problem deploying to testpypi November 16, 2025 18:43 — with GitHub Actions Failure

edmundmiller merged commit f0437bd into main Nov 17, 2025
6 of 18 checks passed

edmundmiller deleted the claude/add-highlight-dots-bars-011CV2voFCuSPAJYUHjLRjpD branch November 17, 2025 22:13

Navigation Menu

Add highlighting feature for data elements - #30

Add highlighting feature for data elements#30
edmundmiller merged 6 commits into
mainfrom
claude/add-highlight-dots-bars-011CV2voFCuSPAJYUHjLRjpD

edmundmiller commented Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

claude Bot commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

claude Bot commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

claude Bot commented Nov 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

claude Bot commented Nov 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

claude Bot commented Nov 16, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Conversation

edmundmiller commented Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

claude Bot commented Nov 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull Request Overview

Reviewed Changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

claude Bot commented Nov 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull Request Overview

Uh oh!

claude Bot commented Nov 16, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

claude Bot commented Nov 16, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

claude Bot commented Nov 16, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

claude Bot commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

claude Bot commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

claude Bot commented Nov 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

claude Bot commented Nov 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading