Diagram UI bug: horrible Bond overlap

[Sternbach-Software]

Attached is a picture of my family tree. Notice the horrible pile up at the center of the screen with the Bond mini cards. It happens when the bond mini cards are above the people too. The horizontal line.x seems to be ok, but the line.y is off. This seems to be a tricky case, because how do you determine which bonds should go on top, and which on bottom?

[Sternbach-Software]

I believe this is the relevant loop in GedcomGraph. In my case, it is specifically this line.

[Sternbach-Software]

This looks like a good, short function on stackoverflow to determine whether the groups overlap. Was written for Views, so may need to be adjusted for Groups.

[Sternbach-Software]

Some pseudo code that may help:

int initialPosition = node.y + node.height + PROGENY_DISTANCE;
int finalPosition = initialPosition;
while(isOverlapWithOthers(finalPosition)) {
    finalPosition += findNextOverlappingView(finalPosition).bottom + PROGENY_DISTANCE;
}
youth.setY(finalPosition);

For ancestor bonds, instead of findNextOverlappingView(finalPosition).bottom you would use .top + ANCESTRY_DISTANCE, and -= instead of +=.

To optimize that, you could return null from findNextOverlappingView, and use

View overlappingView;
do { 
    overlappingView = findNextOverlappingView(finalPosition);
   if(overlappingView != null) finalPosition = overlappingView.bottom + PROGENY_DISTANCE;
} while(overlappingView != null);

(or while(true) { ...if(overlappingView != null) {...}else break; }

[michelesalvador]

Thank you for reporting that. I absolutely agree this overlap is unpleasant.

Just a clarification: inside GedcomGraph "bond" refers to the horizontal link between two partners. The little cards below are called "progeny" or "mini children/youth". The little cards above are "ancestry" or "mini origin".

A vertical adjustment risks to produce this:

IMHO there is an easier (and more effective) solution: let the Y as is, and shift the X until the progenies don't overlap. Progenies width is now ignored, it's because of that they overlap. So the width of each node should be simply Max(Node.width, Progeny.width):