Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.

• Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals?
• Do the proposed changes follow the Astropy coding guidelines?
• Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy testing guidelines?
• Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy documentation guidelines?
• Is rebase and/or squash necessary? If so, please provide the author with appropriate instructions. Also see instructions for rebase and squash.
• Did the CI pass? If no, are the failures related? If you need to run daily and weekly cron jobs as part of the PR, please apply the "Extra CI" label. Codestyle issues can be fixed by the bot.
• Is a change log needed? If yes, did the change log check pass? If no, add the "no-changelog-entry-needed" label. If this is a manual backport, use the "skip-changelog-checks" label unless special changelog handling is necessary.
• Is this a big PR that makes a "What's new?" entry worthwhile and if so, is (1) a "what's new" entry included in this PR and (2) the "whatsnew-needed" label applied?
• At the time of adding the milestone, if the milestone set requires a backport to release branch(es), apply the appropriate "backport-X.Y.x" label(s) before merge.

Another remark is that both time_support and quantity_support optionally accept arguments. Perharps it'd be good to re-expose them. Probably something like:

def astropy_support(*, quantity_support_kwargs=None, time_support_kwargs=None):
    with ExitStack as stack:
        stack.enter_context(quantity_support(**(quantity_support_kwargs or {}))
        stack.enter_context(time_support(**(time_support_kwargs or {}))
        yield

I have made the changes. Before I commit, should I make a separate module for astropy_support?

As for the test case, I was thinking we could generate an images like this-

@pytest.mark.mpl_image_compare
def test_astropy_support():
  x_meters = np.linspace(1, 10, 50) * u.m  # Distances in meters
  x_kilometers = np.linspace(0.001, 0.01, 50) * u.km  # Distances in kilometers
  
  y_seconds = Time('2000-01-01T00:10:00', scale='utc') + TimeDelta(np.linspace(0, 3600, 50), format='sec')  
  
  start_time = Time('2000-01-01T00:00:00', scale='utc')
  end_time = start_time + TimeDelta(2/24, format='jd')  
  
  with astropy_support():
    fig, ax = plt.subplots()

    ax.plot(x_meters, y_seconds, label='Meters vs. Seconds')
    ax.plot(x_kilometers, y_seconds, label='Kilometers vs. Seconds')
    
    ax.set_ylim(start_time, Time((end_time), format='jd'))

    ax.set_xlabel('Distance (m)')
    ax.set_ylabel('Time')
    ax.legend()

return fig

Within astropy_support, quantity_support takes care of the m / km scaling and time_support will take care of the limits of the graph (this is similar to time_support tests). Thus we get two coincident graphs as follows.

As quantity_support and time_support are already tested extensively, one test should suffice for this right?

Before I commit, should I make a separate module for astropy_support?

Yes, I think that's what makes the most sense. Also, I want to mention that git branch history can be rewritten after the fact and we can help with it, so don't feel like you have to get things right on every single commit !

As quantity_support and time_support are already tested extensively, one test should suffice for this right?

yes, this sounds reasonable to me !

Yes okay, I'll keep that in mind :)
I can't think of a name for the module, so I have just named it astropy_support for now. Also, I have added the test case in astropy\visualization\wcsaxes\tests\test_images.py. However, I'm unsure of the path to the baseline images, so I haven't generated the images yet.

I made the formatting changes.
I am confused about the testing, though. As there is no reference image, tox -e py311-test-image-mpl360-cov is failing, and tox -e py311-test-image-mpl360-cov -- --mpl-generate-hash-library=astropy/tests/figures/py311-test-image-mpl360-cov.json is not generating a new hash either. The documentation says I don't need to generate a reference image and that a reference is generated when the PR is merged.
Do I skip the test? Or is there a way to create the hash map locally? (that includes the new test)

Re: hash -- please see https://docs.astropy.org/en/latest/development/testguide.html#new-hash-libraries

I used .. plot:: as used in other docstrings, and it works. Is there anything?

Thank you ! We still need a couple minor adjustments to get all green CI:

• linting is failing: you can fix this by following instructions listed at the bottom of the page. More generally, see https://docs.astropy.org/en/latest/development/codeguide.html#coding-style-conventions for how to enable linting+autofixes in your local dev environment
• about the new image test: our documentation says that the image will be generated once the PR is merged, but we also have rules preventing merging PRs that fail on circleCI. Does this mean we need someone with override rights to merge this, @pllim ?

@neutrinoceros Now only the new image test CI is left. Once that's sorted the PR should be good to go right?
I would like to contribute more. Please let me know if there are any issues where I can help. Thank you for your guidance!

Once that's sorted the PR should be good to go right?

as far as I'm concerned yes, but I'd like someone else to approve too before this goes in. Thanks for your patience and dedication !

Seeing that the test is still failing, even though you added the hash, I'm wondering: did you generate it locally ? We need to use exact hashes as they come out from Circle CI because matplotlib image generation is not pixel-to-pixel portable, so we can only compare hashes from the same exact machine that runs the image tests.

The py311-test-image-mpldev-cov was failing. I updated the JSON file for the same. Now the check is passing. The hash is same as the one generated on CircleCI, thus the tests passed.

Given the holidays, might take me a few more days to get to this. Thanks for your patience.

Hi humans 👋 - this pull request hasn't had any new commits for approximately 4 months. I plan to close this in 30 days if the pull request doesn't have any new commits by then.

In lieu of a stalled pull request, please consider closing this and open an issue instead if a reminder is needed to revisit in the future. Maintainers may also choose to add keep-open label to keep this PR open but it is discouraged unless absolutely necessary.

If this PR still needs to be reviewed, as an author, you can rebase it to reset the clock.

If you believe I commented on this pull request incorrectly, please report this here.

Yes, I agree. Astropy support should be reserved for broader application anyway...

I'm going to close this pull request as per my previous message. If you think what is being added/fixed here is still important, please remember to open an issue to keep track of it. Thanks!

If this is the first time I am commenting on this issue, or if you believe I closed this issue incorrectly, please report this here.