Description
Problem description:
The current implementation of the ticklabelindex property does not work for dticks that span multiple periods when no minor ticks are present.
Please consider the following example (https://codepen.io/stephprobst/pen/MYYMjmr):
Due to setting '"ticklabelindex": -1', the label to the left of the major tick gets drawn (2023 / 2025) instead of the label to right of the major tick (2024 / 2026).
This is correct and works as it should. Now let's consider another example, where the minor ticks are not shown (https://codepen.io/stephprobst/pen/RNNzROd):
Even though '"ticklabelindex": -1' is set as before, the label to the right of the major tick (2024 / 2026) gets now drawn. This causes some issues for us, as we cannot rely on the ticklabelindex to always work as expected.
There is yet another scenario, where '"ticklabelindex": -1' does not work exactly as expected. Please consider this third codepen (https://codepen.io/stephprobst/pen/LEEKRBK):
In this example, instead of minor ticks we use "ticklabelstep": 2 for a similar layout. I would now have expected the '"ticklabelindex": -1' property to have the same effect as before with the minor ticks: Drawing the label to the left of the major tick (2023 / 2025). But this is not the case.
Why this is relevant:
The behaviour as described above prevents us from creating the following automation:
- Makes sure the last visible tick is a major tick
- Makes sure the label for the last data point is drawn
For both scenarios we set the tick0 property, but depending on the presence of minor ticks or the distance between the ticks the label behaves differently with `"ticklabelindex": -1' in place (which is our default).
Expected behavior:
The "ticklabelindex": -1 property should behave consistent across all the use cases listed above. In all examples, the labels 2023 and 2025 should be shown.