I'm currently adding gutter mark support to the RSpec bundle. It works, but marks set by the SCM Diff Gutter bundle seem to take precedence: If I try to set an error mark in a line thats already marked as “changed”, it isn't visible. How could that be solved?
Stefan.
On 20 Oct 2014, at 23:33, Stefan Daschek wrote:
I'm currently adding gutter mark support to the RSpec bundle. It works, but marks set by the SCM Diff Gutter bundle seem to take precedence: If I try to set an error mark in a line thats already marked as “changed”, it isn't visible. How could that be solved?
Right now there is no solution, but I’ll give marks with an associated value higher z-level than those without, so if you set a warning/error mark with associated text, it will (in the near future) eclipse the SCM gutter marks.
I'm currently adding gutter mark support to the RSpec bundle. It works, but marks set by the SCM Diff Gutter bundle seem to take precedence: If I try to set an error mark in a line thats already marked as “changed”, it isn't visible. How could that be solved?
Right now there is no solution, but I’ll give marks with an associated value higher z-level than those without, so if you set a warning/error mark with associated text, it will (in the near future) eclipse the SCM gutter marks.
Great, thanks! That should work for the most cases.
Have you considered simply displaying the mark images on top of each other in this cases? I have this vague idea of using a thin, colored line for SCM status (e.g. green for added, orange for changed) – if those images were built to show the line at the very left (or right) edge of the gutter, combining them with other mark images could work quite well.
Of course this solution doesn't really scale if there's more than one “central” gutter image. But I think, especially with SCM Diff Gutter, competing gutter images will happen quite frequently.
Stefan.
On 20 Oct 2014, at 23:58, Stefan Daschek wrote:
Have you considered simply displaying the mark images on top of each other in this cases?
Currently the images are single color (vectors), so rendering them on top of each other would probably not work without doing some sort of outline effect.
I have this vague idea of using a thin, colored line for SCM status (e.g. green for added, orange for changed) – if those images were built to show the line at the very left (or right) edge of the gutter, combining them with other mark images could work quite well.
Could also place the marks on the line numbers or maybe give them its own column, since we only need 3×3 points to render a plus sign. Main concern is to not making the marks API too complex or hardcoded.
You could just change the colour of the line number to indicated addition or change, that way the SCM flag doesn’t require any gutter space.
Dave.
On 21/10/2014 07:57, "Allan Odgaard" mailinglist@textmate.org wrote:
On 20 Oct 2014, at 23:58, Stefan Daschek wrote:
Have you considered simply displaying the mark images on top of each other in this cases?
Currently the images are single color (vectors), so rendering them on top of each other would probably not work without doing some sort of outline effect.
I have this vague idea of using a thin, colored line for SCM status (e.g. green for added, orange for changed) – if those images were built to show the line at the very left (or right) edge of the gutter, combining them with other mark images could work quite well.
Could also place the marks on the line numbers or maybe give them its own column, since we only need 3×3 points to render a plus sign. Main concern is to not making the marks API too complex or hardcoded.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation (UK) Limited Registered No. 1134945 (England) Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ VAT No: 860 2173 47
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
On 21 Oct 2014, at 10:29, Baldwin, Dave wrote:
You could just change the colour of the line number to indicated addition or change, that way the SCM flag doesn’t require any gutter space.
It’s very subtle for quickly scanning “where are the lines I changed” and will not allow indicating missing lines (which is a challenge with marks, but can be done) and it violates my concern about “not making the marks API too complex or hardcoded” (before other options have been exhausted).
Am 21.10.14 um 08:57 schrieb Allan Odgaard:
On 20 Oct 2014, at 23:58, Stefan Daschek wrote:
I have this vague idea of using a thin, colored line for SCM status (e.g. green for added, orange for changed) – if those images were built to show the line at the very left (or right) edge of the gutter, combining them with other mark images could work quite well.
Could also place the marks on the line numbers or maybe give them its own column, since we only need 3×3 points to render a plus sign. Main concern is to not making the marks API too complex or hardcoded.
Here's a quick mockup how I think the gutter marks for SCM status could look like, together with an error mark (icon taken from FontAwesome):
Making SCM indicators on consecutive lines visually “collapse” into a single indicator would greatly reduce visual clutter, I think.
No idea about how to represent deleted lines in this way, though :-/
Stefan
On 22 10 2014, at 21:36, Stefan Daschek stefan@daschek.net wrote:
No idea about how to represent deleted lines in this way, though :-/
Maybe something like this
I think the a simple way to resolve this is to add a (optional) group id to the marks. Then each group gets its own column. If no group is given then just throw it into a default group and show the last mark that was set for each line. The API would only get slightly more complex, and optionally no more complex, and conflicts would be avoided for things that care to avoid them.
As for the look of the SCM marks, I do like color on the marks as they are easier to scan quickly. I kind of like the way Atom looks: it keeps the single-column nature of the marks and seems pretty easy to do with simple vectors.
On Oct 22, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Igor K me@igorkozlov.me wrote:
On 22 10 2014, at 21:36, Stefan Daschek stefan@daschek.net wrote:
No idea about how to represent deleted lines in this way, though :-/
Maybe something like this
<faeceehi.png>
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
On 24 Oct 2014, at 1:11, Steven Clukey wrote:
I think the a simple way to resolve this is to add a (optional) group id to the marks […]
I like the mockup; but for the API, there are several parameters that set it apart from the single-color scalable shape one can currently place to the left of a line, so it would probably be better to make a dedicated “diff” API where the command set the status for a line range, and then it’s up to TextMate, how to visualize that.
On 23 Oct 2014, at 00:26, Igor K me@igorkozlov.me wrote:
On 22 10 2014, at 21:36, Stefan Daschek stefan@daschek.net wrote:
No idea about how to represent deleted lines in this way, though :-/
Maybe something like this
<faeceehi.png>
I'm colour-blind, it took me bloody ages to spot that! Obviously, if this was adopted it would be theme-able so that wouldn't be an issue, I hope.
-
Allan Odgaard -
Baldwin, Dave -
Igor K -
Justin Catterall -
Stefan Daschek -
Steven Clukey