Traceplot parity

Is it intentional to have a different traceplot from pymc3? Each element of an RV with shape > 1 gets a plot in arviz, while they are all the same for pymc3.

Explicitly, with eight schools (I only capture the first few plots from arviz):

J = 8
y = np.array([28,  8, -3,  7, -1,  1, 18, 12])
sigma = np.array([15, 10, 16, 11,  9, 11, 10, 18])

with pm.Model() as hierarchical:
    eta = pm.Normal('eta', 0, 1, shape=J)
    mu = pm.Normal('mu', 0, sd=1e6)
    tau = pm.HalfCauchy('tau', 5)
    theta = pm.Deterministic('theta', mu + tau*eta)
    obs = pm.Normal('obs', theta, sd=sigma, observed=y)
    trace_h = pm.sample(1000)

[twiecki]

Advocating for returning to the pymc3 way by default. It is much worse UX to take forever and then break, rather than displaying a crowded plot which might trigger a user to look at the docs to find that option.

[michaelosthege]

One difficulty with combined plots (I prefer them in most cases) is the overlay of the chains on the right. Maybe, they should get alpha=1/ndim or so.