DRY loneHover routine

[antoinerg]

Fx.loneHover logic is already contained in Fx.multiHover so I remove the duplication here.

[etpinard]

Brilliant!

I'm a little worried about this block:

plotly.js/src/components/fx/hover.js

Lines 168 to 189 in 26bc2bf

	// Fix vertical overlap
	var tooltipSpacing = 5;
	var lastBottomY = 0;
	var anchor = 0;
	hoverLabel
	.sort(function(a, b) {return a.y0 - b.y0;})
	.each(function(d, i) {
	var topY = d.y0 - d.by / 2;
	if((topY - tooltipSpacing) < lastBottomY) {
	d.offset = (lastBottomY - topY) + tooltipSpacing;
	} else {
	d.offset = 0;
	}
	lastBottomY = topY + d.by + d.offset;
	if(i === opts.anchorIndex || 0) anchor = d.offset;
	})
	.each(function(d) {
	d.offset -= anchor;
	});

affecting traces that use Fx.loneHover in bad ways. Could you manually check that pie, gl3d, sunburst and sankey traces look the same?

---

Moreover, maybe we could go one step further by merging multiHovers with loneHover completely. Looks like all you need is something like:

return Array.isArray(hoverItems) ? hoverLabel : hoverLabel.node(); 

at the end.

[antoinerg]

Could you manually check that pie, gl3d, sunburst and sankey traces look the same?

I added a console.log(d.offset) after L188 and made sure d.offset is zero for all the traces you mentioned. In the future, if we support different alignment schemes for hover labels, we should definitely add test this in jasmine.

Moreover, maybe we could go one step further by merging multiHovers with loneHover completely.

Do you mean that I should remove all occurrences of Fx.loneHover in our codebase? I guess it would make sense to do so.

[etpinard]

Do you mean that I should remove all occurrences of Fx.loneHover in our codebase?

I would do opposite. Keep loneHover and merge multiHovers into loneHover. loneHover has more history in the repo (it's been there ever since gl3d got its hover labels).

[etpinard]

Awesome 💃