I'm not too familiar with 3D plotting, but the test explicitly set the box aspect. If a user did similarly, shouldn't we respect it?

Thanks @rcomer
My intention with the early return was to avoid the equal-aspect adjustment logic from running when aspect="auto", since it was continuing to modify the axis limits and box aspect.
You're right that the test explicitly sets a box aspect. In that case we should respect a user-defined set_box_aspect.

Would it make more sense to only reset the box aspect when it was implicitly modified by the equal-aspect logic, rather than when it was explicitly set by the user?

I think that overriding a previously set aspect with "auto" is the correct behavior. But we should have different behavior with setting "auto" on the "datalim" - the box shouldn't be modified in that case.

Hello @scottshambaugh

Updated set_aspect('auto') to respect adjustable. For adjustable='box', the box aspect is reset as expected.
For adjustable='datalim', the existing behavior is preserved.

I verified that in the datalim case, switching to 'equal' does not lead to a meaningful change in limits, so I did not add an assertion for limit differences.
Added a test to cover the adjustable='datalim' behavior.

What is the current behavior for 'datalim'? Please share screenshots, and try to set up a case where this is exercised. I don't think the test added for the datalim case is meaningfully doing anything right now.

Hello,
I rechecked the datalim case with a minimal example.

Observed behavior:
Initial limits, after setting 'equal', and after switching back to 'auto' all remain the same. So in the 'datalim' case, aspect changes do not seem to affect limits.

Given this behavior, I’m trying to determine what the intended assertion should be for the datalim case. Could you clarify what aspect of the behavior we should validate here?