So the question is, if setting the ticks on via ax.minorticks_on() would be expected to superseed the log locator's choice not to show minor ticks in case the axis range is large (and the absolute axes size small).
My first guess is that explicitly setting minor ticks should be respected. But I‘m not clear if there are fundamental reasons the log locator would want to override this. If we‘re deciding to not follow minorticks_on, we should at least issue a warning about that.
There is a bit of history to this through #5161, #7000, #7419, #8111, #12865.
The problem is that the locator determines if there are minor ticks to be shown or not and reading through the above issues/PRs it does that for good reasons. E.g. for small ranges you would need minor ticks, even if they haven't been turned on explicitely, but for large ranges minor ticks would overcrowd the axes; also, as seen in issue #8111 one needs to be a bit careful which minor ticks to show.
To me it looks like fixing this would require the locator to query the axes if minor ticks have been set on explixitely by the user and then come up with a logic for which minor ticks to show in such case where major ticks are more than a decade away from each other.
Activity
ImportanceOfBeingErnest commented on Jan 27, 2020
A workaround would be to use a custom locator
So the question is, if setting the ticks on via ax.minorticks_on() would be expected to superseed the log locator's choice not to show minor ticks in case the axis range is large (and the absolute axes size small).
timhoffm commented on Jan 27, 2020
My first guess is that explicitly setting minor ticks should be respected. But I‘m not clear if there are fundamental reasons the log locator would want to override this. If we‘re deciding to not follow minorticks_on, we should at least issue a warning about that.
jklymak commented on Jan 27, 2020
The minor locator is being called. It’s just not finding any ticks we could change the minor locator.
ImportanceOfBeingErnest commented on Jan 27, 2020
There is a bit of history to this through #5161, #7000, #7419, #8111, #12865.
The problem is that the locator determines if there are minor ticks to be shown or not and reading through the above issues/PRs it does that for good reasons. E.g. for small ranges you would need minor ticks, even if they haven't been turned on explicitely, but for large ranges minor ticks would overcrowd the axes; also, as seen in issue #8111 one needs to be a bit careful which minor ticks to show.
To me it looks like fixing this would require the locator to query the axes if minor ticks have been set on explixitely by the user and then come up with a logic for which minor ticks to show in such case where major ticks are more than a decade away from each other.
oscargus commented on Jun 4, 2022
This seems to have been solved at some stage. With the current main branch this gives:

I'm closing this, but feel free to reopen if there are still issues.