You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In the first attempt, the group of nodes participates in the layout calculation as normal nodes do
Later, I thought that I should remove the node group first when sorting. It is used to calculate the size and position of the node group based on the node position in the node group after sorting
This might look better.
However, if node3 and node4 are not at the same level (same depth), this can cause problems.
In the layout calculation of the excluded node group, node4 is placed on the left! If node3 and node4 recalculate the size of group1...... group1 may be too large and include many unrelated nodes
I think mermaid seems to handle this pretty well, you know?
I suddenly thought of another idea:
when calculating the layout, for example, group1 contains node3 and node4, then first layout the set [node3, node4], the rectangle size of the scatter set, and set the size and size of group1. Perform this operation for all node groups
In the second step, build a new nodes-Edges dataset, remove the data within the node group, and transfer the connections to the nodes within the node group to the node group (e.g. the connections to node3 and node4 to group1). (Note that the current size of the node group is the size calculated in step 1)
Place the nodes in the node group back into the node group according to the offset obtained in Step 1
At this point, all nodes and node groups are expected to be located correctly.
This can be complicated... Do you know if anyone has ever implemented something like this
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
In the first attempt, the group of nodes participates in the layout calculation as normal nodes do
Later, I thought that I should remove the node group first when sorting. It is used to calculate the size and position of the node group based on the node position in the node group after sorting
This might look better.
However, if node3 and node4 are not at the same level (same depth), this can cause problems.
In the layout calculation of the excluded node group, node4 is placed on the left! If node3 and node4 recalculate the size of group1...... group1 may be too large and include many unrelated nodes
I think mermaid seems to handle this pretty well, you know?
I suddenly thought of another idea:
This can be complicated... Do you know if anyone has ever implemented something like this
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions