Re: [BUG] A part of an edge from an octopus merge gets colored, even with --color=never

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 05:45:19PM -0400, Noam Postavsky wrote:

On 20 May 2016 at 18:12, Noam Postavsky [off-list ref] wrote:

My, this is a blast from the past. :)

Subject: [PATCH v1] log: Fix coloring of certain octupus merge shapes

For octopus merges where the first parent edge immediately merges into
the next column to the left:

| | *-.
| | |\ \
| |/ / /

then the number of columns should be one less than the usual case:

| *-.
| |\ \
| | | *

These diagrams confused me for a minute, because I see two differences:

  1. The first one has an extra apparently unrelated parallel branch on
     the far left.

  2. The first has the first-parent of the "*" merge commit immediately
     join the branch.

But if I understand correctly, we only care about the second property.
So would it be accurate to show them as:

  | *-.
  | |\ \
  |/ / /

  | *-.
  | |\ \
  | | | *

?

I think that makes it easier to compare them.

I don't remember much about our prior discussion, so let me try to talk
myself through the patch itself:

OK, so the old code emitted num_dashes, and every pair was done with the
same column. Our highest iteration of this loop would use the column at
(num_dashes-1) / 2. We know that num_dashes is always odd, so:

 num_dashes = 1 puts our last column at 0
 num_dashes = 3 puts our last column at 1

And so on. So far so good.

+	int first_col = dashless_commits + graph->commit_index;

This corresponds to the i=0 case, makes sense.

+	int last_col = first_col + (num_dashes / 2);

But here our last_col misses the "-1". I don't think it matters because
we know num_dashes is always odd, and therefore due to integer
truncation (num_dashes-1)/2 == (num_dashes/2).

The shifting of last_col I expect as part of the fix. I was surprised by
shifting first_col, though. Wouldn't it always start at 0 (offset by the
previous commits)? It definitely seems to be necessary, but I'm not sure
I understand why.

In this new loop we count up our dashes and our columns. But now we have
1-to-1 correspondence as we increment! I don't think that can be right.
And indeed, if I take your original problem report and add an extra "d"
branch and make the octopus "a b d", then the problem comes back. You
don't notice with a 3-parent merge because 

We need to increment col_num only half as much as num_dashes. Should we
be doing:

  for (col_num = first_col; col_num < last_col; col_num++) {
	  strbuf_write_column(sb, &graph->new_columns[col_num], '-');
	  strbuf_write_column(sb, &graph->new_columns[col_num], '-');
  }
  strbuf_write_column(sb, &graph->new_columns[last_col], '-');
  strbuf_write_column(sb, &graph->new_columns[last_col], '.');

I.e., write "--" for each interior column, and then "-." for the last
one?

-Peff