Implemented graph value clamping

[donutAnees]

Checklist

• I have described the changes
• I have linked to any relevant GitHub issues, if applicable
• Documentation in doc/ has been updated
• All new code is licensed under GPLv3

Description

Before

Values that fall below the threshold of visibility in a given graph are not seen, leading to small values being omitted.

After

A new flag, '-m value', has been implemented, allowing the user to specify the threshold value between 0 and 5. This will enable values below the threshold to be displayed.

downspeedgraph en0 50,280 ADFF2F 32CD32 -t -x -m 5

Fixes #1060

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for conkyweb ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	1db645b
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/conkyweb/deploys/66a85d0dff5f210008caa862
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2000--conkyweb.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[brndnmtthws]

Thanks for the PR! My only question is, are we sure "clamping" is the right term for this? When I think of clamping, I tend to think about having an upper bound limit or lower bound (i.e., setting a minimum and maximum possible range of values). This is a slightly different: we're essentially setting a lower bound limit, but only for nonzero values. It's different from having a floor or ceiling, as again–those apply whether you have a zero or not. I wonder if there is a better term to describe it?

Clamp is basically min(max(x, min_val), max_val). But what we're doing here is more like if x != 0 then max(min_val, x) else x end.

Maybe even just calling this "nonzero minimum" or something is more descriptive.

Thoughts?

[donutAnees]

Hey! Those are very valid points, traditional definition of clamping would not be very applicable here. The reason I thought clamping made sense is that we are setting a lower bound with a condition, so it's more like 'conditional clamping' rather than the default definition. However, I believe the "nonzero minimum" would be a good term to describe this or something like "nonzero lowerbound" would be better. I’m really interested to hear your thoughts on this!

29 July 2024
@brndnmtthws Hey just a follow up on this!

[brndnmtthws]

Hey! Those are very valid points, traditional definition of clamping would not be very applicable here. The reason I thought clamping made sense is that we are setting a lower bound with a condition, so it's more like 'conditional clamping' rather than the default definition. However, I believe the "nonzero minimum" would be a good term to describe this or something like "nonzero lowerbound" would be better. I’m really interested to hear your thoughts on this!

I think these are all good suggestions: conditional clamping, or nonzero minimum/lowerbound make sense. I think if you update the docs to use that language (I defer to you on which to use, as the PR author), then this PR should be good to go!

[donutAnees]

Hey! Those are very valid points, traditional definition of clamping would not be very applicable here. The reason I thought clamping made sense is that we are setting a lower bound with a condition, so it's more like 'conditional clamping' rather than the default definition. However, I believe the "nonzero minimum" would be a good term to describe this or something like "nonzero lowerbound" would be better. I’m really interested to hear your thoughts on this!

I think these are all good suggestions: conditional clamping, or nonzero minimum/lowerbound make sense. I think if you update the docs to use that language (I defer to you on which to use, as the PR author), then this PR should be good to go!

Thanks a lot for the freedom! I've made the changes to the doc. Cheers!