The labels do not come from the variables, but the ravels, as these are directly attached to the plot.
You obviously originally had the top ravel attached to DebtPrivateDC, which auto populated the tooltip field with the variable name, but then changed the ravel to be attached to DebtPrivate%GDP without updating the tooltip. You can easily update the tooltip in the description field.
It would be incorrect to override the contents of the tooltip field when attaching to a new variable - as the user may have chosen an even better name for this. Populating an empty tooltip on attaching a variable is just a convenience function.
What bothers me is that this example had saved multiple handles as "sort by value" without saving the actual sort order. I've seen this often from you, I don't know how you manage to do that, since you are using 3.5.0. This was a behaviour that was fixed many beta versions ago, so I can only surmise this was an old example, and that saving it out of the new version does not correct the state.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
The labels do not come from the variables, but the ravels, as these are directly attached to the plot.
You obviously originally had the top ravel attached to DebtPrivateDC, which auto populated the tooltip field with the variable name, but then changed the ravel to be attached to DebtPrivate%GDP without updating the tooltip. You can easily update the tooltip in the description field.
It would be incorrect to override the contents of the tooltip field when attaching to a new variable - as the user may have chosen an even better name for this. Populating an empty tooltip on attaching a variable is just a convenience function.
What bothers me is that this example had saved multiple handles as "sort by value" without saving the actual sort order. I've seen this often from you, I don't know how you manage to do that, since you are using 3.5.0. This was a behaviour that was fixed many beta versions ago, so I can only surmise this was an old example, and that saving it out of the new version does not correct the state.