i am trying to graph a doubly linked circular list in .dot language but it does not display as i want. Both of the circular edges are under the nodes but i want 1 of them above
this is what i want:
expected result
but i get this instead:
given result
here is my .dot code: https://dreampuf.github.io/GraphvizOnline/#digraph%20{%0A%20%20node[shape=record];%0A%20%20graph[pencolor=transparent];%0A%20%20rankdir=LR;%0A%20%20p1[label=%22{%3Cprev%3E|%3Cdata%3E%2012|%3Cnext%3E}%22];%0A%20%20p2[label=%22{%3Cprev%3E|%3Cdata%3E%2012|%3Cnext%3E}%22];%0A%20%20p3[label=%22{%3Cprev%3E|%3Cdata%3E%2012|%3Cnext%3E}%22];%0A%0A%0A%20%20%20%20p1:next%20-%3E%20p2:prev;%0A%20%20p2:next%20-%3E%20p3:prev;%0A%20%20p2:prev%20-%3E%20p1:next;%0A%20%20p3:prev%20-%3E%20p2:next;%0A%20%20%20%20edge[tailclip=false,dir=%22forward%22%20splines=%22compound%22%20constraint=%20%22false%22];%0A%20%0A%20%0Ap3:next%20-%3E%20p1:prev;%0A%0Ap1:prev%20-%3E%20p3:data;%0A%0A%20%20%20%20%0A}
thank you
Main change was to add a port position (https://graphviz.org/docs/attr-types/portPos/) to the head & tail of the edge. Also removed some unneeded bits.
digraph {
node[shape=record];
graph[pencolor=transparent];
rankdir=LR;
p1[label="{<prev>|<data> 12|<next>}"];
p2[label="{<prev>|<data> 12|<next>}"];
p3[label="{<prev>|<data> 12|<next>}"];
p1:next -> p2:prev;
p2:next -> p3:prev;
p2:prev -> p1:next;
p3:prev -> p2:next;
p1:prev:n -> p3:data:n;
// edge[tailclip=false,dir="forward" splines="compound" constraint= "false"];
p3:next -> p1:prev;
}
Giving:
Related
What I want to achieve is, if I have something like
Strict Digraph G {
a -> b [label = edge1]
a -> b [label = edge2]
a -> b
a -> b
a -> b [label = edge1]
}
then I should get a graph with 2 nodes and 3 edges between them (One with label edge1, one with edge2 and one without a label).
It doesn't seem to be possible, with the strict keyword with this input, it only draws one edge.
Sorry, not "legal". From https://graphviz.org/doc/info/lang.html
A graph may also be described as strict. This forbids the creation of multi-edges, i.e., there can be at most one edge with a given tail node and head node in the directed case.
I'm creating some multilevel SEM graphs and I'm running into a small problem. The latent variable at the bottom of the graph (labeled "WF") is supposed to have a double-headed edge to and from it but the edge should go under the node. Note the correct orientation of the topmost node. Seems and easy fix but I can find it. Thanks in advance. (BTW, I've provided only a snippet of the original model, but this is sufficient for the purpose.)
digraph stackex {
{rank=min;
bf [shape=ellipse]
bf:nw -> bf:ne [dir = both]}
{node[shape=square]
bf -> i1
i1[label=X1]
i1 -> wf [dir=back]}
{wf [shape=ellipse]
wf:sw -> wf:se [dir = both]}
}
And here's what it produces:
The double-headed arrow should go under the node labled "WF".
Based on experimentation, it appears that the only way to get
wf:sw -> wf:se [dir = both]
to do what you want is to add
graph [rankdir=TB]
Unfortunately, rankdir affects the entire graph (not just a subgraph or cluster). So you can fix one loop, but you break the other.
The only way I've found to accomplish your goal is to hand-modify the pos of the offending edge (spline). This:
digraph stackex {
graph [bb="0,0,82.583,216"];
node [label="\N",
shape=square
];
bf [height=0.5,
pos="41.292,162",
shape=ellipse,
width=0.75];
bf:nw -> bf:ne [dir=both,
pos="s,26.292,177 e,56.292,177 22.277,186.17 18.135,200.16 21.792,216 41.292,216 60.792,216 64.448,200.16 60.306,186.17"];
i1 [height=0.5,
label=X1,
pos="41.292,90",
width=0.5];
bf -> i1 [pos="e,41.292,108.1 41.292,143.7 41.292,135.98 41.292,126.71 41.292,118.11"];
wf [height=0.5,
pos="41.292,18",
shape=ellipse,
width=0.75];
i1 -> wf [dir=back,
pos="s,41.292,71.697 41.292,61.665 41.292,53.054 41.292,43.791 41.292,36.104"];
wf:se -> wf:sw [dir=both,
pos="s,56.292,3 e,26.292,3
65.002,8.3185
92.908,0.389
88.823,-20
41.292,-20
-6.2395,-20
-10.324,0.389
17.582,8.3185"];
}
And this command
neato -n2 -Tpng doubleheaded3.fixed.dot >doubleheaded3.fixed.png
Gives this:
All in all, I'd suggest the pic/gpic/dpic language. Lower-level, but probably easier to use in the long run.
I have the following source code for a graph in dot:
digraph name {
rankdir="LR";
node [shape="record"];
1 [label="OUTPUT"];
A [label="FWD|<i>i|<r_in>r_in|<r_out>r_out|<o>o"];
B [label="FIFO|<r_in>r_in|<o>o"];
C [label="Cons|<i>i|<r_out>r_out|<o>o"];
A:o:e -> C:i:w;
C:r_out:w -> A:r_in:e;
B:o:e -> A:i:w;
C:o:e -> 1:w;
A:r_out:w -> B:r_in:e;
}
It consists of 4 nodes, which essentially could be placed one after another, in the order B -> A -> C -> OUTPUT. If dot would place the nodes in this order, only few edge would cross between two nodes.
However, calling dot like this:
dot mygraph.dot -Tpng -o mygraph.png
creates the following mess:
Edit: It seems, the order of the nodes in the source is important. However, as the source is generated from a program, outputting its internal signal flow structure, I cannot rely on it to put the nodes in the right order. I thought, dot and its graph layout engine can figure out on its own, which nodes are the first ones, such that the wires do not cross.
Just define the nodes in the desired order:
digraph name {
rankdir="LR";
node [shape="record"];
B [label="FIFO|<r_in>r_in|<o>o"];
A [label="FWD|<i>i|<r_in>r_in|<r_out>r_out|<o>o"];
C [label="Cons|<i>i|<r_out>r_out|<o>o"];
1 [label="OUTPUT"];
A:o:e -> C:i:w;
C:r_out:w -> A:r_in:e;
B:o:e -> A:i:w;
C:o:e -> 1:w;
A:r_out:w -> B:r_in:e;
}
yields
Need draw a graph with dot/graphviz like this image:
The texts can be above arrows, like graphviz does it. But how to achieve the T-layout? Need make a cluster for the top row?
This is one possibility using rank=same for a subgraph:
digraph g {
node[shape=point, width=0.2];
{
rank=same;
p1 -> n [label="text1"];
n -> p2 [label="text2"];
}
n -> p3 [label="text3", dir=back];
n[label="node", shape=rect, style=rounded];
}
You could also use a left-right layout instead of top-down.
An other possibility is to disable the effect of some edges using constraint=false:
digraph g {
node[shape=point, width=0.2];
p1 -> n [label="text1", constraint=false];
n -> p2 [label="text2", constraint=false];
n -> p3 [label="text3", dir=back];
n[label="node", shape=rect, style=rounded];
}
The result is the same.
dot usually layouts trees in layers. To force an edge to not be a layer separation you can add the constraint=false option. So something like:
digraph {
A [shape=point]
B [shape=point]
C [shape=point]
N [label="node"]
A -> N [label="text1", constraint=false]
N -> B [label="text2", constraint=false]
N -> C [label="text3", dir=back]
}
should work.
Note that the edge from the lower node to "node" has to be backwards, since dot layouts trees from top to bottom. Therefore the logical edge direction has to be from top to bottom, even though the display direction might be the other way round (which is the case here).
I am using graphviz for the first time. I just need a tree layout so that all the childs are at the same level.
For example,
A->B
A->C
A->D
THEN B, C AND D SHOULD BE AT THE SAME LEVEL.
Following is the code I am using.
digraph unix {
size="6,6";
node [color=lightblue2, style=filled];
"A:1000" -> "B:300";
"A:1000" -> "C:300";
"A:1000" -> "D:200";
"B:300" -> "E:140";
"B:300" -> "F:164";
"B:300" -> "G:75";
"C:300" -> "H:135";
"C:300" -> "I:91";
"D:200" -> "E:140";
"D:200" -> "F:164";
"D:200" -> "G:75";
"E:140" -> "F:164";
"E:140" -> "G:75";
"F:164" -> "G:75";
"G:75" -> "H:135";
"H:135" -> "I:91";
}
How do I make sure that the childs are at the same level?
To get nodes on the same level, say "B:300" and "C:300", add the following line:
{rank=same; "B:300" "C:300"}
The graph you presented does not represent a tree, but a directed acyclic graph (In a tree there is only one distinct path between every pair of nodes). If your input would have been a tree, then just using dot would produce what you want. If you also want to add non-tree edges, like "C:300" -> "H:135" in your example, you could specify a lower weight for them, to make sure that dot doesn't try to optimize the layout with respect to these edges.
"C:300" -> "H:135" [weight=0];
"C:300" -> "I:91" [weight=0];
Note that these two edges become very long (and to dot, ugly) with this setting, and this is the reason why the node "C:300" is placed as it is in your original graph.