Show word diff when summary changes (instead of <old value> to <new value>)

[framay <franz.mayer@…>]

In this ​summary change you do not see any changes at once - and I guess there is not a change at all (which might be a defect).

It would be better readable if summary changes would be displayed in a diff view instead of "<old value> to <new value>" manner, since most summary changes are typos or small changes.

If it is a bigger change (maybe using some smart algorithm to determine that it has changed more than 50%) Trac could display it in this way: <old value> to <new value>.

[framay <franz.mayer@…>]

Well I guess it depends on ticket #6858, right?

[Christian Boos]

What, you didn't see s/buttom/bottom/ at once? ;-)

I'm not sure whether that would look good or not… some experimentation would be in order.

And yes, #6858 would perhaps help to make the diff highlighting more pertinent, but the current way is already fine in most cases, like in this specific case:

(a) a vs. (b) b

@@ -1 @@
-[PATCH] Prev, Query, Next links at buttom of ticket page
+[PATCH] Prev, Query, Next links at bottom of ticket page

[Peter Suter]

A full colored diff would would maybe be a bit distracting. How about something more subtle like underlining the additions / deletions:

• Summary changed from [PATCH] Prev, Query, Next links at buttom of ticket page to [PATCH] Prev, Query, Next links at bottom of ticket page

Maybe just add some linebreaks:

• Summary changed from
  [PATCH] Prev, Query, Next links at buttom of ticket page to
  [PATCH] Prev, Query, Next links at bottom of ticket page

[Peter Suter]

The attached patch attempts to implement the underlining. I'm not quite sure what the best criteria are to trigger this mode. We probably shouldn't underline very big or obvious short changes. Also it's unclear how the reporter and owner fields (and other custom text fields) should be handled.

Tests may need to be updated when this is decided.

[Ryan J Ollos]

Seems like a good change if the algorithm is tuned a bit, and looks pretty good on top of #11835. I tried using a background color rather than underline since it won't hide characters such as the underscore. It's probably too distracting.

I like always using the → between old and new rather than "changed from old to new".

[Peter Suter]

Agreed, #11835 should definitively be taken into account here with the →. I had not considered the underlined underscore problem. Subjectively I still prefer underlining.

[Jun Omae]

I would like to use highlight rather than underline. I don't think underline decorating is readable.

If you want to use arrow character (→), it would be good to use %(old)s → %(new)s, simply.

jomae.git@t10532.

[Peter Suter]

OK, that does look quite nice. What do you think about only showing these on :hover?

[Ryan J Ollos]

Replying to psuter:

What do you think about only showing these on :hover?

That sounds good to me, so that it won't be too distracting.

[Christian Boos]

Looks nice, but I'd like to take it one step further:

Résumé :	#10533 (before) → #10532 (after)

[Ryan J Ollos]

Milestone renamed

[Ryan J Ollos]

Milestone renamed