Polygons with holes are now rendered correctly

[timtreis]

No description provided.

[timtreis]

Hey @rushin682 and @quentinblampey, could you verify that your data works with this branch?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 84.84%. Comparing base (b07ada7) to head (37958af).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/utils.py	90.90%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #513 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.80% 84.84% +0.03% 
==========================================
Files 8 8 Lines 2146 2158 +12 ==========================================
+ Hits 1820 1831 +11 - Misses 326 327 +1 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/render.py	91.07% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/utils.py	80.94% <90.90%> (+0.08%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[quentinblampey]

Hi @timtreis, thanks for the fix!
Sorry for the delay, I wanted to have a look tomorrow. I guess it'll look good, but I'll let you know if not

[quentinblampey]

Actually I had some time to test it right now @timtreis, and, while it worked well on simple polygons, it didn't work on more complex polygons.

Here is an example:

fromshapelyimportPolygonfromgeopandasimportGeoDataFramefromspatialdataimportSpatialDatafromspatialdata.modelsimportShapesModelimportspatialdata_plotext= [
(7.866043666934409, 32.80184055229537),
(19.016191271980425, 203.48380872801957),
(75.90086964475744, 236.02570144190528),
(229.48380872801957, 235.98380872801957),
(235.98380872801957, 5.516191271980426),
(197.42585593903195, 6.144892860751103),
(116.5, 96.4575926540027),
(55.65582863082729, 12.531294107459374),
(7.866043666934409, 32.80184055229537),
]
interior= [
(160.12353079731844, 173.21221665537414),
(181.80184055229537, 159.13395633306558),
(198.86604366693442, 179.80184055229537),
(178.19815944770465, 198.86604366693442),
(160.12353079731844, 173.21221665537414),
]
polygon=Polygon(ext, [interior])
geo_df=GeoDataFrame(geometry=[polygon])
sdata=SpatialData(shapes={"test": ShapesModel.parse(geo_df)})
sdata.pl.render_shapes("test").pl.show()

While GeoPandas shows:

Do you really need to convert it to a multipolygon? I think the inner geopandas function _plot_polygon_collection from geopandas.plotting already handles everything without the need for conversion. Is there a reason not to use it?

[timtreis]

I have a bit of preemptive PTSD for making all transformations/parameters etc work if we'd swap to a new plotting function. We'd also loose control over the internals of it. Let me dig into that issue, I really thought it would be solved. The logger also correctly notices that there is a hole, it just doesn't plot it for some reason. I'm confused as to why this polygon is different from your previous example

[quentinblampey]

Yes, I'll also try many different things to understand what's different from the other polygon, but I couldn't find a solution yet...

[timtreis]

No description provided.

[timtreis]

Hey @rushin682 and @quentinblampey, could you verify that your data works with this branch?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 84.84%. Comparing base (b07ada7) to head (37958af).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/utils.py	90.90%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #513 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.80% 84.84% +0.03% 
==========================================
Files 8 8 Lines 2146 2158 +12 ==========================================
+ Hits 1820 1831 +11 - Misses 326 327 +1 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/render.py	91.07% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/utils.py	80.94% <90.90%> (+0.08%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[quentinblampey]

Hi @timtreis, thanks for the fix!
Sorry for the delay, I wanted to have a look tomorrow. I guess it'll look good, but I'll let you know if not

[quentinblampey]

Actually I had some time to test it right now @timtreis, and, while it worked well on simple polygons, it didn't work on more complex polygons.

Here is an example:

fromshapelyimportPolygonfromgeopandasimportGeoDataFramefromspatialdataimportSpatialDatafromspatialdata.modelsimportShapesModelimportspatialdata_plotext= [
(7.866043666934409, 32.80184055229537),
(19.016191271980425, 203.48380872801957),
(75.90086964475744, 236.02570144190528),
(229.48380872801957, 235.98380872801957),
(235.98380872801957, 5.516191271980426),
(197.42585593903195, 6.144892860751103),
(116.5, 96.4575926540027),
(55.65582863082729, 12.531294107459374),
(7.866043666934409, 32.80184055229537),
]
interior= [
(160.12353079731844, 173.21221665537414),
(181.80184055229537, 159.13395633306558),
(198.86604366693442, 179.80184055229537),
(178.19815944770465, 198.86604366693442),
(160.12353079731844, 173.21221665537414),
]
polygon=Polygon(ext, [interior])
geo_df=GeoDataFrame(geometry=[polygon])
sdata=SpatialData(shapes={"test": ShapesModel.parse(geo_df)})
sdata.pl.render_shapes("test").pl.show()

While GeoPandas shows:

Do you really need to convert it to a multipolygon? I think the inner geopandas function _plot_polygon_collection from geopandas.plotting already handles everything without the need for conversion. Is there a reason not to use it?

[timtreis]

I have a bit of preemptive PTSD for making all transformations/parameters etc work if we'd swap to a new plotting function. We'd also loose control over the internals of it. Let me dig into that issue, I really thought it would be solved. The logger also correctly notices that there is a hole, it just doesn't plot it for some reason. I'm confused as to why this polygon is different from your previous example

[quentinblampey]

Yes, I'll also try many different things to understand what's different from the other polygon, but I couldn't find a solution yet...

[timtreis]

No description provided.

[timtreis]

Hey @rushin682 and @quentinblampey, could you verify that your data works with this branch?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 84.84%. Comparing base (b07ada7) to head (37958af).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/utils.py	90.90%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #513 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.80% 84.84% +0.03% 
==========================================
Files 8 8 Lines 2146 2158 +12 ==========================================
+ Hits 1820 1831 +11 - Misses 326 327 +1 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/render.py	91.07% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/utils.py	80.94% <90.90%> (+0.08%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[quentinblampey]

Hi @timtreis, thanks for the fix!
Sorry for the delay, I wanted to have a look tomorrow. I guess it'll look good, but I'll let you know if not

[quentinblampey]

Actually I had some time to test it right now @timtreis, and, while it worked well on simple polygons, it didn't work on more complex polygons.

Here is an example:

fromshapelyimportPolygonfromgeopandasimportGeoDataFramefromspatialdataimportSpatialDatafromspatialdata.modelsimportShapesModelimportspatialdata_plotext= [
(7.866043666934409, 32.80184055229537),
(19.016191271980425, 203.48380872801957),
(75.90086964475744, 236.02570144190528),
(229.48380872801957, 235.98380872801957),
(235.98380872801957, 5.516191271980426),
(197.42585593903195, 6.144892860751103),
(116.5, 96.4575926540027),
(55.65582863082729, 12.531294107459374),
(7.866043666934409, 32.80184055229537),
]
interior= [
(160.12353079731844, 173.21221665537414),
(181.80184055229537, 159.13395633306558),
(198.86604366693442, 179.80184055229537),
(178.19815944770465, 198.86604366693442),
(160.12353079731844, 173.21221665537414),
]
polygon=Polygon(ext, [interior])
geo_df=GeoDataFrame(geometry=[polygon])
sdata=SpatialData(shapes={"test": ShapesModel.parse(geo_df)})
sdata.pl.render_shapes("test").pl.show()

While GeoPandas shows:

Do you really need to convert it to a multipolygon? I think the inner geopandas function _plot_polygon_collection from geopandas.plotting already handles everything without the need for conversion. Is there a reason not to use it?

[timtreis]

I have a bit of preemptive PTSD for making all transformations/parameters etc work if we'd swap to a new plotting function. We'd also loose control over the internals of it. Let me dig into that issue, I really thought it would be solved. The logger also correctly notices that there is a hole, it just doesn't plot it for some reason. I'm confused as to why this polygon is different from your previous example

[quentinblampey]

Yes, I'll also try many different things to understand what's different from the other polygon, but I couldn't find a solution yet...

[timtreis]

No description provided.

[timtreis]

Hey @rushin682 and @quentinblampey, could you verify that your data works with this branch?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 84.84%. Comparing base (b07ada7) to head (37958af).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/utils.py	90.90%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #513 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.80% 84.84% +0.03% 
==========================================
Files 8 8 Lines 2146 2158 +12 ==========================================
+ Hits 1820 1831 +11 - Misses 326 327 +1 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/render.py	91.07% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/utils.py	80.94% <90.90%> (+0.08%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[quentinblampey]

Hi @timtreis, thanks for the fix!
Sorry for the delay, I wanted to have a look tomorrow. I guess it'll look good, but I'll let you know if not

[quentinblampey]

Actually I had some time to test it right now @timtreis, and, while it worked well on simple polygons, it didn't work on more complex polygons.

Here is an example:

fromshapelyimportPolygonfromgeopandasimportGeoDataFramefromspatialdataimportSpatialDatafromspatialdata.modelsimportShapesModelimportspatialdata_plotext= [
(7.866043666934409, 32.80184055229537),
(19.016191271980425, 203.48380872801957),
(75.90086964475744, 236.02570144190528),
(229.48380872801957, 235.98380872801957),
(235.98380872801957, 5.516191271980426),
(197.42585593903195, 6.144892860751103),
(116.5, 96.4575926540027),
(55.65582863082729, 12.531294107459374),
(7.866043666934409, 32.80184055229537),
]
interior= [
(160.12353079731844, 173.21221665537414),
(181.80184055229537, 159.13395633306558),
(198.86604366693442, 179.80184055229537),
(178.19815944770465, 198.86604366693442),
(160.12353079731844, 173.21221665537414),
]
polygon=Polygon(ext, [interior])
geo_df=GeoDataFrame(geometry=[polygon])
sdata=SpatialData(shapes={"test": ShapesModel.parse(geo_df)})
sdata.pl.render_shapes("test").pl.show()

While GeoPandas shows:

Do you really need to convert it to a multipolygon? I think the inner geopandas function _plot_polygon_collection from geopandas.plotting already handles everything without the need for conversion. Is there a reason not to use it?

[timtreis]

I have a bit of preemptive PTSD for making all transformations/parameters etc work if we'd swap to a new plotting function. We'd also loose control over the internals of it. Let me dig into that issue, I really thought it would be solved. The logger also correctly notices that there is a hole, it just doesn't plot it for some reason. I'm confused as to why this polygon is different from your previous example

[quentinblampey]

Yes, I'll also try many different things to understand what's different from the other polygon, but I couldn't find a solution yet...

[timtreis]

No description provided.

[timtreis]

Hey @rushin682 and @quentinblampey, could you verify that your data works with this branch?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 84.84%. Comparing base (b07ada7) to head (37958af).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/utils.py	90.90%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #513 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.80% 84.84% +0.03% 
==========================================
Files 8 8 Lines 2146 2158 +12 ==========================================
+ Hits 1820 1831 +11 - Misses 326 327 +1 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/render.py	91.07% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/utils.py	80.94% <90.90%> (+0.08%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[quentinblampey]

Hi @timtreis, thanks for the fix!
Sorry for the delay, I wanted to have a look tomorrow. I guess it'll look good, but I'll let you know if not

[quentinblampey]

Actually I had some time to test it right now @timtreis, and, while it worked well on simple polygons, it didn't work on more complex polygons.

Here is an example:

fromshapelyimportPolygonfromgeopandasimportGeoDataFramefromspatialdataimportSpatialDatafromspatialdata.modelsimportShapesModelimportspatialdata_plotext= [
(7.866043666934409, 32.80184055229537),
(19.016191271980425, 203.48380872801957),
(75.90086964475744, 236.02570144190528),
(229.48380872801957, 235.98380872801957),
(235.98380872801957, 5.516191271980426),
(197.42585593903195, 6.144892860751103),
(116.5, 96.4575926540027),
(55.65582863082729, 12.531294107459374),
(7.866043666934409, 32.80184055229537),
]
interior= [
(160.12353079731844, 173.21221665537414),
(181.80184055229537, 159.13395633306558),
(198.86604366693442, 179.80184055229537),
(178.19815944770465, 198.86604366693442),
(160.12353079731844, 173.21221665537414),
]
polygon=Polygon(ext, [interior])
geo_df=GeoDataFrame(geometry=[polygon])
sdata=SpatialData(shapes={"test": ShapesModel.parse(geo_df)})
sdata.pl.render_shapes("test").pl.show()

While GeoPandas shows:

Do you really need to convert it to a multipolygon? I think the inner geopandas function _plot_polygon_collection from geopandas.plotting already handles everything without the need for conversion. Is there a reason not to use it?

[timtreis]

I have a bit of preemptive PTSD for making all transformations/parameters etc work if we'd swap to a new plotting function. We'd also loose control over the internals of it. Let me dig into that issue, I really thought it would be solved. The logger also correctly notices that there is a hole, it just doesn't plot it for some reason. I'm confused as to why this polygon is different from your previous example

[quentinblampey]

Yes, I'll also try many different things to understand what's different from the other polygon, but I couldn't find a solution yet...

[timtreis]

No description provided.

[timtreis]

Hey @rushin682 and @quentinblampey, could you verify that your data works with this branch?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 84.84%. Comparing base (b07ada7) to head (37958af).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/utils.py	90.90%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #513 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.80% 84.84% +0.03% 
==========================================
Files 8 8 Lines 2146 2158 +12 ==========================================
+ Hits 1820 1831 +11 - Misses 326 327 +1 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/render.py	91.07% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/utils.py	80.94% <90.90%> (+0.08%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[quentinblampey]

Hi @timtreis, thanks for the fix!
Sorry for the delay, I wanted to have a look tomorrow. I guess it'll look good, but I'll let you know if not

[quentinblampey]

Actually I had some time to test it right now @timtreis, and, while it worked well on simple polygons, it didn't work on more complex polygons.

Here is an example:

fromshapelyimportPolygonfromgeopandasimportGeoDataFramefromspatialdataimportSpatialDatafromspatialdata.modelsimportShapesModelimportspatialdata_plotext= [
(7.866043666934409, 32.80184055229537),
(19.016191271980425, 203.48380872801957),
(75.90086964475744, 236.02570144190528),
(229.48380872801957, 235.98380872801957),
(235.98380872801957, 5.516191271980426),
(197.42585593903195, 6.144892860751103),
(116.5, 96.4575926540027),
(55.65582863082729, 12.531294107459374),
(7.866043666934409, 32.80184055229537),
]
interior= [
(160.12353079731844, 173.21221665537414),
(181.80184055229537, 159.13395633306558),
(198.86604366693442, 179.80184055229537),
(178.19815944770465, 198.86604366693442),
(160.12353079731844, 173.21221665537414),
]
polygon=Polygon(ext, [interior])
geo_df=GeoDataFrame(geometry=[polygon])
sdata=SpatialData(shapes={"test": ShapesModel.parse(geo_df)})
sdata.pl.render_shapes("test").pl.show()

While GeoPandas shows:

Do you really need to convert it to a multipolygon? I think the inner geopandas function _plot_polygon_collection from geopandas.plotting already handles everything without the need for conversion. Is there a reason not to use it?

[timtreis]

I have a bit of preemptive PTSD for making all transformations/parameters etc work if we'd swap to a new plotting function. We'd also loose control over the internals of it. Let me dig into that issue, I really thought it would be solved. The logger also correctly notices that there is a hole, it just doesn't plot it for some reason. I'm confused as to why this polygon is different from your previous example

[quentinblampey]

Yes, I'll also try many different things to understand what's different from the other polygon, but I couldn't find a solution yet...

[timtreis]

No description provided.

[timtreis]

Hey @rushin682 and @quentinblampey, could you verify that your data works with this branch?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 84.84%. Comparing base (b07ada7) to head (37958af).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/utils.py	90.90%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #513 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.80% 84.84% +0.03% 
==========================================
Files 8 8 Lines 2146 2158 +12 ==========================================
+ Hits 1820 1831 +11 - Misses 326 327 +1 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/render.py	91.07% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/utils.py	80.94% <90.90%> (+0.08%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[quentinblampey]

Hi @timtreis, thanks for the fix!
Sorry for the delay, I wanted to have a look tomorrow. I guess it'll look good, but I'll let you know if not

[quentinblampey]

Actually I had some time to test it right now @timtreis, and, while it worked well on simple polygons, it didn't work on more complex polygons.

Here is an example:

fromshapelyimportPolygonfromgeopandasimportGeoDataFramefromspatialdataimportSpatialDatafromspatialdata.modelsimportShapesModelimportspatialdata_plotext= [
(7.866043666934409, 32.80184055229537),
(19.016191271980425, 203.48380872801957),
(75.90086964475744, 236.02570144190528),
(229.48380872801957, 235.98380872801957),
(235.98380872801957, 5.516191271980426),
(197.42585593903195, 6.144892860751103),
(116.5, 96.4575926540027),
(55.65582863082729, 12.531294107459374),
(7.866043666934409, 32.80184055229537),
]
interior= [
(160.12353079731844, 173.21221665537414),
(181.80184055229537, 159.13395633306558),
(198.86604366693442, 179.80184055229537),
(178.19815944770465, 198.86604366693442),
(160.12353079731844, 173.21221665537414),
]
polygon=Polygon(ext, [interior])
geo_df=GeoDataFrame(geometry=[polygon])
sdata=SpatialData(shapes={"test": ShapesModel.parse(geo_df)})
sdata.pl.render_shapes("test").pl.show()

While GeoPandas shows:

Do you really need to convert it to a multipolygon? I think the inner geopandas function _plot_polygon_collection from geopandas.plotting already handles everything without the need for conversion. Is there a reason not to use it?

[timtreis]

I have a bit of preemptive PTSD for making all transformations/parameters etc work if we'd swap to a new plotting function. We'd also loose control over the internals of it. Let me dig into that issue, I really thought it would be solved. The logger also correctly notices that there is a hole, it just doesn't plot it for some reason. I'm confused as to why this polygon is different from your previous example

[quentinblampey]

Yes, I'll also try many different things to understand what's different from the other polygon, but I couldn't find a solution yet...

[timtreis]

No description provided.

[timtreis]

Hey @rushin682 and @quentinblampey, could you verify that your data works with this branch?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 84.84%. Comparing base (b07ada7) to head (37958af).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/utils.py	90.90%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #513 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.80% 84.84% +0.03% 
==========================================
Files 8 8 Lines 2146 2158 +12 ==========================================
+ Hits 1820 1831 +11 - Misses 326 327 +1 

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/render.py	91.07% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
src/spatialdata_plot/pl/utils.py	80.94% <90.90%> (+0.08%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[quentinblampey]

Hi @timtreis, thanks for the fix!
Sorry for the delay, I wanted to have a look tomorrow. I guess it'll look good, but I'll let you know if not

[quentinblampey]

Actually I had some time to test it right now @timtreis, and, while it worked well on simple polygons, it didn't work on more complex polygons.

Here is an example:

fromshapelyimportPolygonfromgeopandasimportGeoDataFramefromspatialdataimportSpatialDatafromspatialdata.modelsimportShapesModelimportspatialdata_plotext= [
(7.866043666934409, 32.80184055229537),
(19.016191271980425, 203.48380872801957),
(75.90086964475744, 236.02570144190528),
(229.48380872801957, 235.98380872801957),
(235.98380872801957, 5.516191271980426),
(197.42585593903195, 6.144892860751103),
(116.5, 96.4575926540027),
(55.65582863082729, 12.531294107459374),
(7.866043666934409, 32.80184055229537),
]
interior= [
(160.12353079731844, 173.21221665537414),
(181.80184055229537, 159.13395633306558),
(198.86604366693442, 179.80184055229537),
(178.19815944770465, 198.86604366693442),
(160.12353079731844, 173.21221665537414),
]
polygon=Polygon(ext, [interior])
geo_df=GeoDataFrame(geometry=[polygon])
sdata=SpatialData(shapes={"test": ShapesModel.parse(geo_df)})
sdata.pl.render_shapes("test").pl.show()

While GeoPandas shows:

Do you really need to convert it to a multipolygon? I think the inner geopandas function _plot_polygon_collection from geopandas.plotting already handles everything without the need for conversion. Is there a reason not to use it?

[timtreis]

I have a bit of preemptive PTSD for making all transformations/parameters etc work if we'd swap to a new plotting function. We'd also loose control over the internals of it. Let me dig into that issue, I really thought it would be solved. The logger also correctly notices that there is a hole, it just doesn't plot it for some reason. I'm confused as to why this polygon is different from your previous example

[quentinblampey]

Yes, I'll also try many different things to understand what's different from the other polygon, but I couldn't find a solution yet...