I would like to have an "implies" arrow between the two graphs here
digraph G {
subgraph case {
x;
left [shape=diamond];
right [shape=diamond];
left -> x;
right -> x;
}
subgraph case_ {
x_;
left_ [shape=diamond];
right_ [shape=diamond];
left_ -> x_;
right_ -> x_;
}
}
Trying to GraphViz - How to connect subgraphs? doesn't work because I'm using the dot algorithm. But I don't need anything too fancy since I have a bunch of diagrams like this where there is a "before" and "after" state and I want to put some visual indicator.
Related
I recently started using Graphviz.
I'm working on a graph with labels, but they're not showing up. Neither are my sub-groups being surrounded by an encompassing rectangle.
Here's my code:
digraph system {
subgraph Machine_001 {
label = "Machine_001";
subgraph Machine_001_Service_001 {
label = "Service_001 on Machine_001";
node [shape=record];
Machine_001_PORT_10 [label = "Port 10"];
Machine_001_PORT_11 [label = "Port 11"];
Machine_001_PORT_12 [label = "Port 12"];
Machine_001_PORT_13 [label = "Port 13"];
{rank=same Machine_001_PORT_10 Machine_001_PORT_11 Machine_001_PORT_12 Machine_001_PORT_13}
Machine_001_PORT_10 -> Machine_001_PORT_11;
Machine_001_PORT_12;
Machine_001_PORT_13;
}
}
subgraph Machine_002 {
label = "Machine_002";
subgraph Machine_002_Service_001 {
label = "Service_001 on Machine_002";
node [shape=record];
Machine_002_PORT_50 [label = "Port 50"];
Machine_001_PORT_11 -> Machine_002_PORT_50;
}
}
}
Using http://www.webgraphviz.com/ to render it, I would expect labels, but those are not shown.
On the other hand, an example like this does show labels and an encompassing rectangle:
digraph D {
subgraph cluster_p {
label = "Parent";
subgraph cluster_c1 {
label = "Child one";
a;
subgraph cluster_gc_1 {
label = "Grand-Child one";
b;
}
subgraph cluster_gc_2 {
label = "Grand-Child two";
c;
d;
}
}
subgraph cluster_c2 {
label = "Child two";
e;
}
}
}
Frankly, I don't see what the problem is. I gave it a label, and I nested it. Which is exactly what the working example does.
What am I missing?
Looks like placing "cluster_" in front of the names in the subgraphs solves the problem, so the following is not 100% an answer as I think, my interpretation of the definitions, it should be possible.
In https://www.graphviz.org/doc/info/lang.html some definitions are given (left out some parts by me!):
subgraph : [ subgraph [ ID ] ] '{' stmt_list '}'
An ID is one of the following:
Any string of alphabetic ([a-zA-Z\200-\377]) characters, underscores ('_') or digits ([0-9]), not beginning with a digit;
The third role for subgraphs directly involves how the graph will be laid out by certain layout engines. If the name of the subgraph begins with cluster, Graphviz notes the subgraph as a special cluster subgraph. If supported, the layout engine will do the layout so that the nodes belonging to the cluster are drawn together, with the entire drawing of the cluster contained within a bounding rectangle. Note that, for good and bad, cluster subgraphs are not part of the DOT language, but solely a syntactic convention adhered to by certain of the layout engines.
So it looks like that the names of the subgraphs are a bit limited in this case.
Maybe that and issue at https://gitlab.com/graphviz/graphviz/issues can help
There is rankdir for the global graph which sets the orientation of the layout. What about subgraph or cluster - is there a way to have one subgraph in TD layout and another subgraph in BT?
How to achieve the graph in the attached image with following (incorrect) code?
digraph G {
subgraph cluster0 {
rankdir="TD";
A; B;
A -> B;
}
subgraph cluster1 {
rankdir="BT"; // this doesn't produce the desired output
C; D;
D -> C;
}
}
You cannot do that, rankdir is only allowed at top level (graph)
but in simple cases you can work around it by
to go in opposite direction:
C->D[dir=back]
to go in to the side:
{rank=same C D}
I have the following Graphviz code:
digraph {
Technique [shape = box];
Path [shape = box];
KnowledgeObservation [shape = box, label = "Knowledge\nObservation"];
ManagementIntervention [shape = box, label = "Management\nIntervention"];
ResultsModification [shape = box, label = "Results\nModification"];
SharedCode [label = "Shared Code"];
MediatedRelationship [label = "Mediated Relationship"];
Art -> Technique;
Therapy -> Path;
{Technique Path} -> KnowledgeObservation -> ManagementIntervention -> ResultsModification;
{MediatedRelationship SharedCode} -> {KnowledgeObservation ResultsModification}
subgraph {
rank = same
Technique -> Path [dir = none]
}
subgraph {
rank = same
SharedCode
ManagementIntervention
MediatedRelationship
}
}
It currently produces the following output:
How can I vertically align "Management Intervention" with both "Knowledge Observation" and "Results Modification"?
"Shared Code" should be moved to the left of "Management Intervention".
"Mediated Relationship" should be moved to the right of "Management Intervention".
"Shared Code", "Management Intervention" and "Mediated Relationship" should stay horizontally aligned.
How can I accomplish this?
This can be achieved without subgraphs; the most important modification is the line
{ rank = same; SharedCode -> ManagementIntervention -> MediatedRelationship[ style = invis ] }
which keeps the three nodes not only on the right level, but also within the desired order.
Altogether, this code here
digraph
{
// node definition
Art Therapy;
Technique[ shape = box ];
Path[ shape = box ];
KnowledgeObservation[ shape = box, label = "Knowledge\nObservation" ];
ManagementIntervention[ shape = box, label = "Management\nIntervention" ];
ResultsModification[ shape = box, label = "Results\nModification" ];
SharedCode[ label = "Shared Code" ];
MediatedRelationship[ label = "Mediated Relationship" ];
// edges
Art -> Technique;
Therapy -> Path;
{ rank = same; Technique -> Path [dir = none] }
{ Technique Path} -> KnowledgeObservation -> ManagementIntervention -> ResultsModification;
{ rank = same; SharedCode -> ManagementIntervention -> MediatedRelationship[ style = invis ] }
{ MediatedRelationship SharedCode } -> { KnowledgeObservation ResultsModification }
}
gives you
which is, in my understanding, what you are looking for.
Still I would recommend to replace the last line of code with these three
KnowledgeObservation -> { SharedCode MediatedRelationship }[ dir = back ];
SharedCode -> ResultsModification;
MediatedRelationship -> ResultsModification;
Reason is that once your graph gets more complicated, graphviz will recognize and maintain the hierarchical relationships, rather than interpreting ambiguous instructions in surprising ways.
How can I vertically align "Management Intervention" with both "Knowledge Observation" and "Results Modification"?
This can be achieved with increasing the weight of the edge. Edges with higher weight tend to be straighter and shorter than with the lower.
"Mediated Relationship" should be moved to the right of "Management Intervention".
You can control this with the order in which the nodes are defined. If you define "Management Intervention" before the "Shared Code", it (MI) will be drawn first, i. e., to the left of the SI.
"Shared Code", "Management Intervention" and "Mediated Relationship" should stay horizontally aligned.
You did it right, using the rank=same subgraph attribute. Though I would put the subgraph already in the moment of node definitions. This will shorten the source size and limit the rank specification to the place where the nodes are defined, which is good for readability (everything stated in one place).
Your modified example:
digraph {
Technique [shape = box];
Path [shape = box];
KnowledgeObservation [shape = box, label = "Knowledge\nObservation"];
ResultsModification [shape = box, label = "Results\nModification"];
subgraph {
rank=same
ManagementIntervention [shape = box, label = "Management\nIntervention"];
MediatedRelationship [label = "Mediated Relationship"];
SharedCode [label = "Shared Code"];
}
Art -> Technique;
Therapy -> Path;
{Technique Path} -> KnowledgeObservation
KnowledgeObservation -> ManagementIntervention -> ResultsModification [weight=3]
{MediatedRelationship SharedCode} -> {KnowledgeObservation ResultsModification}
subgraph {
rank = same
Technique -> Path [dir = none]
}
}
Result:
I have the following simple graph and I want to have only the text GetArea() in italics. Is this possible?
digraph {
rankdir = BT;
node [shape=record];
cPolygon [label="{cPolygon|GetArea()}"];
{rank=same; cSquare cTriangle}
cSquare -> cPolygon;
cTriangle -> cPolygon;
}
I think you should use HTML like labels:
digraph {
rankdir = BT;
node [shape=record];
cPolygon [label=<<table border="0"><tr><td>cPolygon</td></tr><tr><td><i>GetArea()</i></td></tr></table>>];
{rank=same; cSquare cTriangle}
cSquare -> cPolygon;
cTriangle -> cPolygon;
}
yields
edit
a horizontal row:
...
cPolygon [label=<<table border="0"><tr><td>cPolygon</td></tr><hr/><tr><td><i>GetArea()</i></td></tr></table>>];
...
I want to draw a V-Modell for software development. I want to use graphviz to keep it more maintainable than in Visio.
How can I get the typical V-structure in Graphviz?
I think I need horizontal and vertical alignment.
I tried to work with dummy-nodes but the layout is still poor.
This code works for me. It has a bit of a workaround in it to create the V shape. I use an invisible node and invisible edges to create a wedge between the 2 sides of the V-model.
digraph Vmodel {
// Transparent background
graph [bgcolor=none]
// Node style
node [
shape=record
style="rounded, filled"
width=2.5
height=0.8
fillcolor=white
];
// Create the nodes
user_req_models [label="User\nRequirements\nModels"]
sys_req_models [label="System\nRequirements\Models"]
arch_models [label="Architectural\Models"]
comp_design_models [label="Component\Design\Models"]
unit_design_models [label="Unit\nDesign\nModels"]
units [label="Units\n(SW, HW and Data)"]
components [label="Components\n(SW, HW and Data)"]
subsystems [label="Subsystems"]
integrated_system [label="Integrated System"]
operational_system [label="Operational System"]
// Create a hidden node to form a V-shaped wedge
hidden [style="invis"]
// Create the basic layout of the V model
user_req_models->sys_req_models
sys_req_models->arch_models
arch_models->comp_design_models
comp_design_models->unit_design_models
unit_design_models->units
units->components
components->subsystems
subsystems->integrated_system
integrated_system->operational_system
// Create the dashed edges
user_req_models->operational_system [style="dashed", constraint=false]
sys_req_models->integrated_system [style="dashed", constraint=false]
arch_models->subsystems [style="dashed", constraint=false]
comp_design_models->components [style="dashed", constraint=false]
// Create a wedge between the two parts
hidden->user_req_models [style="invis"]
hidden->sys_req_models [style="invis"]
hidden->arch_models [style="invis"]
hidden->comp_design_models [style="invis"]
hidden->operational_system [style="invis"]
hidden->integrated_system [style="invis"]
hidden->subsystems [style="invis"]
hidden->components [style="invis"]
hidden->unit_design_models [style="invis"]
hidden->units [style="invis"]
// Ranking on the same level
{rank=same; user_req_models, operational_system}
{rank=same; sys_req_models, integrated_system}
{rank=same; arch_models, subsystems}
{rank=same; comp_design_models, components}
{rank=same; unit_design_models, units}
}
I have used the following graph for requirements and tests specified in DO-178C.
digraph V_Cycle {
ranksep=0.3;
graph [fontname = "Handlee"];
node [fontname = "Handlee"];
edge [fontname = "Handlee"];
bgcolor=transparent;
/* ==== NODES === */
// Create hidden nodes to lower derived req
hid_sys_hl [style="invis"];
hid_hl_ll [style="invis"];
hid_ll_code [style="invis"];
hid_sr_hsi[style="invis"];
hid_req_tests[style="invis"];
// Requirements
node [color="#FFB71B", shape=note];
sys_req[label="System Requirements"];
hlr[label="High-Level\nSW Requirements"];
d_hlr[label="Derived\nHigh-Level Req.", style="dashed"];
llr[label="Low-Level\nSW Requirements"];
d_llr[label="Derived\nLow-Level Req.", style="dashed"];
// Code
node [color="#FFB71B", shape=component];
code;
// Tests
node [color="#000000", shape=box];
hsi_tests[label="Hardware/Software\nIntegration Tests"];
si_tests[label="Software\nIntegration Tests"];
ll_tests[label="Low-Level\n(Unit) Tests"];
/* ==== EDEGES === */
// Hidden to create intermediate level for derived req
hlr:sw -> hid_hl_ll:ne -> llr:sw[style="invis"];
llr:sw -> hid_ll_code:ne -> code:w[style="invis"];
{rank=same; d_hlr, hid_hl_ll}
{rank=same; d_llr, hid_ll_code}
// Requirements
edge[splines="ortho"];
sys_req:s -> hlr:w[weight=10];
hlr:s -> llr:w[weight=10];
hlr:s -> d_hlr:w[splines="spline",style="dashed", weight=5];
llr:s -> code:w[weight=10];
llr:s -> d_llr:w[splines="spline",style="dashed", weight=5];
// Tests
hsi_tests:s -> si_tests:e[dir="back", weight=10];
si_tests:s -> ll_tests:e[dir="back", weight=10];
// REQ & CODE -- TESTS
edge[splines="spline",color="#C89211", dir="back"];
{rank=same; hid_sys_hl, hid_sr_hsi}
hid_sys_hl -> hid_sr_hsi -> hsi_tests[style="invis"];
{rank=same; d_hlr, hid_req_tests}
llr -> d_hlr -> hid_req_tests -> ll_tests[style="invis"];
{rank=same; sys_req, hsi_tests}
sys_req -> hsi_tests;
{rank=same; hlr, si_tests}
hlr -> si_tests;
d_hlr:ne -> si_tests:sw;
{rank=same; llr, ll_tests}
llr -> ll_tests;
d_llr:ne -> ll_tests:s;
}
When using https://sketchviz.com/, the rendering is the following: