Doesn’t merge rests into one when the measure has 3 or 4 voices

workaround is the same as prior to that new feature: hide or delete those voice 2+ rests

I'm not really so sure it makes to do that, though. The example here seems unusual in that there really are not three or four voices, there are really logically only two. It may have been faked using three or four and stems flipped, but in situations where there actually are three or four voices, it isn't clear that it really does make sense to merge them. Seems that is more likely to add to what is already a confusing situation.

Some real world examples of true three or four voice music would be helpful in sorting out what is really expected.

Indeed, really weird behaviour: instead to merge rests, this option adds a new one! :(
In short, just the opposite of the hoped-for result. Kind of regression due to a known commit (I guess)

"I made real world example of 3 voices for solo Guitar.
(for four voices.. I couldn’t imagine real example.. I rarely (never??)"

Of course, it exists, and really not uncommon in repertoire (for lute and so guitar) of transcriptions of vocal polyphonic works from the Renaissance period.

Well, this "Merge matching rests" is a new feature that just doesn't quite work as intended/expected, not something that broke.
And an option that isn't turned on by default (except for the closed score SATB templates)

And most likely also in the contemporary repertoire (contemporary language) of the 20th century. My memories are just a little more diffuse in this type of repertoire.

Hi. Regarding this: "Indeed, really weird behaviour: instead to merge rests, this option adds a new one! :("
there was a thread I participated in (which I cannot find now) in which working with multiple voices and removing and then adding rests in various voices caused another rest to appear in a following bar.

I am not sure if it applies to this thread but I add it in case it may be helpful.
3.4.2.9788

And version prior to 3.5 doesn't have that feature. That issue with a rest appearing on the next measure is unrelated here.

Unfortunately, I see something else, at the least, if not more serious, due to the same "famous" commit.
It probably deserves the opening of a specific issue.
Here is (picture below) a very simple case, and it is really the BA-Ba of a guitar writing.
I want to hide a rest in Voice 2. Result: Voice 1 changes direction. This makes no sense! NEVER in this use case.
Besides, the rest doesn't need to be higher since it overlaps the notes/beams
(and simply because he has to stay in his own line of voice to avoid confusion in the conduct of voices when you are checking this)
In short, a regression, and a serious one.

Expected (as always, since all other versions) :

Not to be argumentative, but what is never expected for the guitar is what is usually expected in a symphonic and probably a piano score. This means there either needs to be special case in the code for guitar (perhaps all instruments with string data as a default?) or a user option.

Would you really have separate voices in that case? Why not chords? If there really must be two voices and the flipped minims really belong in the upper voice why make the rest invisible? Surely it is needed to show that there are two voices and it is the lower voice that is resting not the upper one.

Also, I see that the previous example still only needs two voices of minim chords in the final measure.

Where is the real real-life example that needs more than two voices and also has more than one of those voices resting such that they can share a rest?

cadiz1 has a simplified example. One of the voices might have 8th notes. In the symphonic score, the first note in the example might be the end of an "a 2." section for the clarinets and the introduction of the second voice is where their parts are separated. Guitarist use this to help them keep track of which line of notes belong together. Even in this simplified example, you could see exactly what cadiz1 has shown in a score. I prefer the invisible rests to line up on the center line so I don't have problems clicking visible articulations or having them slightly obscured by the invisible rests.

"Would you really have separate voices in that case? Why not chords?"
Are you serious?
"If there really must be two voices and the flipped minims really belong in the upper voice why make the rest invisible? "
Agreed of this, but in the real life (eg of published scores), these rests in other voices can be hidden.
This is not necessarily recommended, I agree, but again, it's very common in and the context (and the stems direction, precisely, hence the aggravated problem) allows you to get your bearings.
Also, three-voices guitar music is very common (well, the most common) on a single staff (recall this, always.)
And so, one may have sometimes to make editing choices (to hide some rests, or not) to avoid too many rests on the score.
Consequence, this commit makes an unbelievable mess of things.

"three-voices guitar music is very common". OK, but is it very common that there is an opportunity to share rests in two of those voices? (which is what the thread is about, not the capability to write three voices.) All we have seen so far is "simplified examples", but are there cases that exist outside that context?

Relates to #311175: [EPIC] Engraving issues and suggestions

https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/pull/6749

The pull request has been merged. This issue wasn't closed automatically because the issue number in the pull request's commit message is wrong.

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.