Draw ruler and box around headers - rebased#497
Draw ruler and box around headers - rebased#497Svalorzen wants to merge 1 commit intoso-fancy:nextfrom
Conversation
Rulers are drawn around the first level of headers, and boxes around the
second level of headers, if any.
The `diff-so-fancy.rulerWidth` config still applies, but only to the
rulers. Boxes have just the size of the text inside them.
`git show` and `git log` have two levels of headers: (1) commit, and (2)
meta (e.g. `modified: diff-so-fancy`). `git diff` only has one level of
headers: meta.
This allows for a better hierarchical view of commits specifically, with
commit lines having a configurable wider ruler around them and meta
lines ("children" of commits) having a shorter box around them.
|
Couple of quick questions while I review this:
|
|
@scottchiefbaker fwiw there's a comparison screenshot in the original PR: #398 (comment) |
|
I have to admit I'm not really familiar with the codebase, nor I really know Perl. This is mostly a feature that I have wanted for a long time, and after seeing the older PR stay there for a while I just thought I'd give it a spin, and I didn't really do a lot of work to make it run again -- all credit goes to the original author. AppVeyor seems to say that the build is failing, so I'm assuming some tests do fail; perhaps looking for full lines where partial lines get outputted with this patch. I think those tests did not exist when the patch was first proposed. If there's anything I can do with my limited knowledge to help this be put in, I can try, but as I said I'm unfamiliar with both the language and the codebase so I'm limited in what I can offer. |
|
In fact, I can already attest to a minor bug: if a file changed takes more than one line, the line wraps are incorrect. Current: With PR: |
|
Apologies for the delay on this. If this can be cleaned up against the code on What I'm seeing in previous discussion and screenshots is that 95% of these changes would only affect raw |
|
I just landed some code in b32a4ef that should address some of this. Please check the latest code in |
4 participants
This PR is the same as PR #398, I have just rebased it onto the current next so that there are no conflict. Just some re-tabbings were needed.
I'm doing this as the PR still seems to work well, and it would be a shame to lose the amount of work that @ericbn did.