spec testing #102
spec testing #102
Conversation
Reviewer's Guide by SourceryThis pull request introduces spec testing functionality and improves file handling in the graphviz2drawio project. It adds two new shell scripts for generating and testing specs, and modifies the main Python script to ensure proper directory creation when writing output files. Sequence diagram for the spec testing processsequenceDiagram
actor User
participant Shell as test_specs.sh
participant Python as graphviz2drawio
participant Diff as diff
User->>Shell: Run test_specs.sh <source_directory> <specs_directory> <output_directory>
Shell->>Shell: Check arguments
Shell->>Shell: Process files
loop For each .gv.txt file
Shell->>Python: Convert file to .xml
Python-->>Shell: Output .xml file
end
Shell->>Diff: Compare output_directory with specs_directory
alt No differences
Shell-->>User: No differences found. Test passed.
else Differences found
Shell-->>User: Differences found. Test failed.
end
Sequence diagram for the spec generation processsequenceDiagram
actor User
participant Shell as generate_specs.sh
participant Python as graphviz2drawio
User->>Shell: Run generate_specs.sh <source_directory> <specs_directory>
Shell->>Shell: Check arguments
loop For each .gv.txt file
Shell->>Python: Convert file to .xml
Python-->>Shell: Output .xml file
end
Shell-->>User: All .gv.txt files have been processed.
Updated class diagram for the _convert_file functionclassDiagram
class _convert_file {
- to_convert: TextIOWrapper
- program: str
- outfile: str | None
+ out_path: Path
+ mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+ write_text(output)
}
File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several modifications across multiple files, primarily focused on enhancing testing workflows and file management. Key changes include the removal of a script execution step in the GitHub Actions workflow, the addition of a directory to Changes
Possibly related PRs
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @hbmartin - I've reviewed your changes and found some issues that need to be addressed.
Blocking issues:
- Potential hard-coded secret detected. (link)
- Potential hard-coded secret detected. (link)
- Potential hard-coded secret detected. (link)
- Potential hard-coded secret detected. (link)
- Potential hard-coded secret detected. (link)
- Potential hard-coded secret detected. (link)
- Potential hard-coded secret detected. (link)
- Potential hard-coded secret detected. (link)
- Potential hard-coded secret detected. (link)
- Potential hard-coded secret detected. (link)
Here's what I looked at during the review
- 🟡 General issues: 1 issue found
- 🔴 Security: 10 blocking issues, 1 other issue
- 🟢 Testing: all looks good
- 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
- 🟢 Documentation: all looks good
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
test_specs.sh
Outdated
| local src_dir="$1" | ||
| local out_dir="$2" | ||
|
|
||
| find "$src_dir" -type f -name "*.gv.txt" | while read -r file; do |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🚨 suggestion (security): Use find's -print0 option with read -d $'\0' for safer filename handling
This change will help handle filenames with spaces or special characters more safely.
| find "$src_dir" -type f -name "*.gv.txt" | while read -r file; do | |
| find "$src_dir" -type f -name "*.gv.txt" -print0 | while IFS= read -r -d $'\0' file; do |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post
🛑 Comments failed to post (116)
.typos.toml (1)
2-2: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Exclusion list appropriately extended
The change to extend the
extend-excludelist in the typos configuration is appropriate and aligns with the PR objectives. Adding "specs/**" to the exclusion list is a logical step, especially if these files contain generated content or test-specific data that shouldn't be subject to spell-checking.Consider updating the project documentation to reflect this change in the typos configuration, if such documentation exists. This will help other contributors understand why these directories are excluded from spell-checking.
specs/gradient/g_c_n.xml (3)
6-8: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Cluster node is well-defined with appropriate styling.
The cluster node (id="clust1") is correctly defined with proper HTML formatting and styling. The gradient properties (cyan color, south direction) align with the PR objectives for gradient testing.
Consider adding a comment explaining the significance of the geometry values (x="12.0" y="12.0" width="70.0" height="76.5") to improve maintainability.
1-13: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Overall: Well-structured XML file for graph model testing.
This new file
g_c_n.xmlis well-structured and aligns with the PR objectives of improving specification file generation and testing. It provides good test cases for the conversion process, especially with the different gradient properties in the cluster and regular nodes.Consider adding a comment at the beginning of the file explaining its purpose in the context of specification testing. This would improve maintainability and make the file's role in the testing process clearer to other developers.
9-13: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Regular node is well-defined with appropriate styling.
The regular node (id="node1") is correctly defined with proper HTML formatting and styling. The different gradient properties (yellow color, north direction) provide good variety for testing.
For consistency with the cluster node, consider using single quotes for the font-size style:
-value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>anode</font>" +value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>anode</font>"Also, consider adding a comment explaining the relationship between this node's geometry and the cluster node's geometry.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
generate_specs.sh (3)
1-7: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider adding a check for the source directory's existence.
The argument checking is implemented correctly. However, to improve the script's robustness, consider adding a check to ensure the source directory exists before proceeding with the file processing.
You can add this check after line 11:
if [ ! -d "$source_dir" ]; then echo "Error: Source directory '$source_dir' does not exist." >&2 exit 1 fi
33-33: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider enhancing the final output message.
While the current message clearly indicates that the script has completed its task, it could be more informative. Consider adding information about the number of files processed and any errors encountered.
Here's a suggestion to improve the final output:
echo "Processing complete. $processed_files file(s) processed successfully. $error_count error(s) encountered."To implement this, you'll need to add variables to track the number of processed files and errors throughout the script. Initialize
processed_files=0anderror_count=0at the beginning of the script, and increment them appropriately in the main loop.
1-33: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider handling existing files in the specs directory.
The script effectively converts .gv.txt files to .xml files while preserving the directory structure. However, it doesn't address the scenario where the specs directory already exists and contains files. This could lead to unintended overwrites or confusion about which files are up-to-date.
Consider implementing one of the following strategies:
- Add a flag to control overwrite behavior (e.g.,
--forceto overwrite existing files).- Implement a timestamp comparison to only update files that are newer than their corresponding spec files.
- Clear the specs directory before running the script (with user confirmation).
Here's an example of how you might implement the first option:
#!/bin/bash force_overwrite=false # Parse command-line options while getopts ":f" opt; do case ${opt} in f ) force_overwrite=true ;; \? ) echo "Usage: $0 [-f] <source_directory> <specs_directory>" exit 1 ;; esac done shift $((OPTIND -1)) # ... (rest of the script) # In the main loop, before processing each file: if [ -f "$output_file" ] && [ "$force_overwrite" = false ]; then echo "Skipping existing file: $output_file" continue fi # ... (process the file)This change would allow users to control whether existing files should be overwritten, providing more flexibility and safety in the script's operation.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Shellcheck
[info] 19-19: Expansions inside ${..} need to be quoted separately, otherwise they match as patterns.
(SC2295)
specs/directed/hello_rect.xml (2)
6-11: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Node definitions are well-structured and consistent.
The node definitions for "Hello" and "World" are correctly implemented with appropriate styling and positioning. The use of
mxCellelements with proper attributes ensures compatibility with the mxGraph model.For improved consistency, consider extracting common styles into a shared style definition. This can be achieved using the
stylesheetelement in mxGraph. For example:<mxStylesheet> <add as="defaultVertex"> <add as="shape" value="rectangle"/> <add as="verticalAlign" value="middle"/> <add as="fontFamily" value="Times,serif"/> <add as="fontSize" value="14"/> <add as="fontColor" value="#000000"/> <add as="strokeColor" value="black"/> <add as="fillColor" value="none"/> <add as="strokeWidth" value="1"/> </add> </mxStylesheet>Then, you can reference this style in your node definitions:
<mxCell id="node1" value="Hello" style="defaultVertex;" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="4.0" y="4.0" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> </mxCell>This approach would make future style changes easier to manage across multiple nodes.
12-17: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Edge definition is correct and well-structured.
The edge connecting "Hello" to "World" is properly implemented with appropriate styling and connection properties. The use of
mxCellelement with correct attributes ensures compatibility with the mxGraph model.For improved clarity and maintainability, consider moving the edge style properties to a separate style definition, similar to the suggestion for node styles. This would make the edge definition more concise and easier to update. For example:
<mxStylesheet> <add as="defaultEdge"> <add as="endArrow" value="block"/> <add as="endFill" value="1"/> <add as="startArrow" value="none"/> <add as="startFill" value="0"/> <add as="strokeColor" value="black"/> <add as="strokeWidth" value="1"/> <add as="rounded" value="0"/> </add> </mxStylesheet>Then, you can reference this style in your edge definition:
<mxCell id="edge1" style="defaultEdge;" edge="1" source="node1" target="node2"> <mxGeometry relative="1" as="geometry"/> </mxCell>This approach would make the edge definition more readable and easier to maintain.
specs/directed/hello.xml (2)
12-17: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Edge definition is correct and properly connects the nodes.
The edge "edge1" is well-defined, connecting "node1" to "node2" with appropriate styling. The use of
exitX,exitY,entryX, andentryYattributes ensures proper connection points on the nodes.For improved clarity and maintainability, consider adding a comment explaining the calculation of source and target points in the
mxGeometryelement. For example:<mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> + <!-- Source and target points are calculated to connect the centers of the nodes --> <mxPoint x="38.46" y="40.3" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="38.46" y="64.46000000000001" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry>📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.<mxCell id="edge1" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5000;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.5000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node1" target="node2"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> <!-- Source and target points are calculated to connect the centers of the nodes --> <mxPoint x="38.46" y="40.3" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="38.46" y="64.46000000000001" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry> </mxCell>
6-11: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Node definitions are correct and well-structured.
The "Hello" and "World" nodes are properly defined with appropriate styling and positioning. The use of HTML formatting in the
valueattribute allows for consistent text appearance.For improved consistency, consider using the same x-coordinate for both nodes. Currently, "node1" has
x="7.07"while "node2" hasx="4.0". Aligning these values would create a more visually balanced diagram. For example:- <mxGeometry x="7.07" y="4.0" width="62.78" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> + <mxGeometry x="4.0" y="4.0" width="62.78" height="36.0" as="geometry" />📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.<mxCell id="node1" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>Hello</font>" style="ellipse;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="4.0" y="4.0" width="62.78" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> </mxCell> <mxCell id="node2" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>World</font>" style="ellipse;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="4.0" y="76.0" width="68.92" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> </mxCell>specs/directed/tooltip.xml (2)
6-11: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Node definitions are correct. Consider a minor consistency improvement.
The node definitions for "World" and "Hello" are properly structured with appropriate styling and geometry. The use of HTML entities in the
valueattribute is correct for XML.For consistency, consider aligning the x-coordinates of both nodes. Currently, "World" is at x="4.0" and "Hello" is at x="7.07". Aligning them might improve the visual appearance of the diagram.
12-17: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Edge definition is correct. Consider adding a tooltip for clarity.
The edge definition connecting "Hello" to "World" is properly structured with appropriate styling and geometry. The source and target references are correct.
Consider adding a
tooltipattribute to the edgemxCellelement. This can provide additional information when users hover over the edge in the diagram. For example:- <mxCell id="edge1" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5000;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.5000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node2" target="node1"> + <mxCell id="edge1" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5000;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.5000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node2" target="node1" tooltip="Connection from Hello to World">This addition would enhance the usability of the diagram by providing more context about the relationship between the nodes.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.<mxCell id="edge1" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5000;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.5000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node2" target="node1" tooltip="Connection from Hello to World"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> <mxPoint x="38.46" y="40.3" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="38.46" y="64.46000000000001" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry> </mxCell>test_specs.sh (4)
14-17: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider adding directory validation.
While the argument assignment is correct and efficiently removes trailing slashes, it would be beneficial to add checks to ensure that the provided directories exist. This can prevent issues later in the script if a non-existent directory is provided.
You could add the following checks after line 17:
for dir in "$source_dir" "$specs_dir" "$output_dir"; do if [ ! -d "$dir" ]; then echo "Error: Directory does not exist: $dir" >&2 exit 1 fi done
33-35: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Add error handling for process_files function call.
While the main script execution is correct, it lacks error handling for the
process_filesfunction call. This could lead to the script continuing even if file processing fails.Consider modifying the execution as follows:
echo "Processing files from $source_dir to $output_dir" -process_files "$source_dir" "$output_dir" +if ! process_files "$source_dir" "$output_dir"; then + echo "Error occurred during file processing. Exiting." >&2 + exit 1 +fiThis change will ensure that the script exits with an error if the
process_filesfunction encounters any issues.📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.# Process files from source_dir to output_dir echo "Processing files from $source_dir to $output_dir" if ! process_files "$source_dir" "$output_dir"; then echo "Error occurred during file processing. Exiting." >&2 exit 1 fi
19-31: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
⚠️ Potential issueFix potential issue with path expansion and consider error handling.
The
process_filesfunction is well-structured, but there's a potential issue with the path expansion on line 25. Additionally, consider adding error handling for the Python script execution.
- Fix the path expansion:
- rel_path="${file#$src_dir/}" + rel_path="${file#"$src_dir"/}"
- Add error handling for the Python script:
- python3 -m graphviz2drawio "$file" -o "$output_file" + if ! python3 -m graphviz2drawio "$file" -o "$output_file"; then + echo "Error processing file: $file" >&2 + return 1 + fiThese changes will make the script more robust and help identify any issues during file processing.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.# Function to process files process_files() { local src_dir="$1" local out_dir="$2" find "$src_dir" -type f -name "*.gv.txt" -print0 | while IFS= read -r -d $'\0' file; do rel_path="${file#"$src_dir"/}" output_file="$out_dir/${rel_path%.gv.txt}.xml" mkdir -p "$(dirname "$output_file")" if ! python3 -m graphviz2drawio "$file" -o "$output_file"; then echo "Error processing file: $file" >&2 return 1 fi echo "Processed: $file -> $output_file" done }🧰 Tools
🪛 Shellcheck
[info] 25-25: Expansions inside ${..} need to be quoted separately, otherwise they match as patterns.
(SC2295)
37-49: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider adding a verbose mode for viewing differences.
The comparison and result reporting logic is sound, but it might be helpful to provide a way to view the differences without necessarily failing the test. This could be useful for debugging or understanding minor discrepancies.
Consider adding a verbose mode:
- Add a new command-line option for verbose mode:
usage() { - echo "Usage: $0 <source_directory> <specs_directory> <output_directory>" + echo "Usage: $0 [-v] <source_directory> <specs_directory> <output_directory>" + echo " -v: Verbose mode (show differences without failing the test)" exit 1 } +verbose=false +while getopts ":v" opt; do + case ${opt} in + v ) verbose=true ;; + \? ) usage ;; + esac +done +shift $((OPTIND -1))
- Modify the comparison logic:
if [ -z "$diff_output" ]; then echo "No differences found. Test passed." exit 0 else - echo "Differences found. Test failed." - echo "Differences:" - echo "$diff_output" - exit 1 + if $verbose; then + echo "Differences found (verbose mode):" + echo "$diff_output" + exit 0 + else + echo "Differences found. Test failed." + echo "Run with -v option to see differences." + exit 1 + fi fiThese changes allow users to run the script in verbose mode to see differences without failing the test, which can be useful for debugging or understanding minor discrepancies.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
.github/workflows/lint.yml (2)
14-24: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Good job updating actions and adding Graphviz setup!
The updates to
actions/checkoutandactions/setup-pythonare great for keeping the workflow secure and up-to-date. Adding the Graphviz setup step aligns well with the PR objectives for improving specification file handling.The new caching options for pip dependencies will likely improve workflow performance. However, be cautious with the
allow-prereleases: trueoption, as it might introduce instability.Consider adding a comment explaining why pre-releases are allowed, or remove this option if it's not strictly necessary for your testing purposes.
42-45: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Good addition of specs testing step
The new step for running the
test_specs.shscript aligns well with the PR objectives of improving specification file testing. This is a valuable addition to the workflow.To improve robustness, consider adding some error handling and checks:
- name: Run specs tests script run: | mkdir tmp_out + if [[ ! -x "./test_specs.sh" ]]; then + echo "Error: test_specs.sh not found or not executable" + exit 1 + fi ./test_specs.sh test/ specs/ tmp_out/ + if [[ $? -ne 0 ]]; then + echo "Error: test_specs.sh failed" + exit 1 + fiThis change ensures that the script exists and is executable, and it also checks the exit status of the script.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.- name: Run specs tests script run: | mkdir tmp_out if [[ ! -x "./test_specs.sh" ]]; then echo "Error: test_specs.sh not found or not executable" exit 1 fi ./test_specs.sh test/ specs/ tmp_out/ if [[ $? -ne 0 ]]; then echo "Error: test_specs.sh failed" exit 1 fi.gitignore (1)
5-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM! Good addition to .gitignore
Adding
tmp_out/to .gitignore is a good practice. This likely corresponds to a temporary output directory used by the new testing or spec generation scripts mentioned in the PR objectives. Ignoring such directories keeps the repository clean and prevents temporary files from being accidentally committed.For clarity, consider adding a comment above this line to explain its purpose. For example:
+# Temporary output directory for spec testing tmp_out/This can help other contributors understand why this directory is being ignored.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.# Temporary output directory for spec testing tmp_out/specs/directed/multilabel.xml (2)
12-20: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
LGTM: Edge and label definitions are correct and well-implemented.
The edge "edge1" is properly defined with appropriate styling and connectivity attributes. The multi-line label "label_edge1" is correctly implemented using separate
divelements for each line.Consider using a more semantic approach for the multi-line label by using a
tspanelement for each line instead ofdiv. This would be more in line with SVG standards, which mxGraph can export to. For example:<mxCell id="label_edge1" value="<svg><text><tspan x='0' dy='1.2em'>c</tspan><tspan x='0' dy='1.2em'>b</tspan><tspan x='0' dy='1.2em'>a</tspan></text></svg>" style="edgeLabel;html=1;align=center;verticalAlign=bottom;resizable=0;points=[];" vertex="1" connectable="0" parent="edge1"> <mxGeometry relative="1" as="geometry" /> </mxCell>This approach provides better control over line spacing and positioning within SVG exports.
6-11: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Node definitions are correct and well-structured.
The node definitions for "node1" and "node2" are properly implemented with appropriate styling and positioning. The labels are correctly formatted with specified font styles.
For improved consistency, consider using the same number of decimal places for all coordinate and dimension values. For example:
- <mxGeometry x="4.0" y="20.5" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> + <mxGeometry x="4.00" y="20.50" width="54.00" height="36.00" as="geometry" />📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.<mxCell id="node1" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>X</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="4.00" y="20.50" width="54.00" height="36.00" as="geometry" /> </mxCell> <mxCell id="node2" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>Y</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="100.75" y="20.50" width="54.00" height="36.00" as="geometry" /> </mxCell>specs/gradient/table.xml (2)
6-8: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM:
clust1cell is well-defined with appropriate styling.The
mxCellwith id="clust1" is correctly structured with appropriate styling attributes, including gradient properties. The geometry is well-defined with specific dimensions and position.Consider adding a
labelattribute to themxCellelement to provide a descriptive name for this container, which could improve clarity and maintainability.
9-11: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM:
node1cell is well-structured, but content could be improved.The
mxCellwith id="node1" is correctly defined with appropriate styling and geometry. The content successfully creates a table-like structure with numbered items.Consider refactoring the content to use HTML table elements for improved semantics and maintainability. Here's an example of how you could structure it:
<mxCell id="node1" value=" <table style='border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%;'> <tr><td style='border: 1px solid black; padding: 5px;'><font style='font-size: 14px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>00</font></td></tr> <tr><td style='border: 1px solid black; padding: 5px;'><font style='font-size: 14px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>01</font></td></tr> <!-- ... other rows ... --> <tr><td style='border: 1px solid black; padding: 5px;'><font style='font-size: 14px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>33</font></td></tr> </table> " style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=gold;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;gradientColor=brown;gradientDirection=radial;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="20.0" y="20.0" width="484.0" height="492.0" as="geometry" /> </mxCell>This structure would be more semantic and potentially easier to maintain or generate programmatically.
specs/directed/port.xml (2)
6-17: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider refactoring node definitions for improved maintainability
The node definitions are consistent and well-structured. However, there's significant duplication in the style and structure of each node. Consider the following suggestions to improve maintainability:
- Extract common styles into a separate variable or constant.
- Use a loop or a function to generate nodes with varying properties.
Example refactoring (pseudo-code):
<xsl:variable name="nodeStyle" select="'ellipse;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;'" /> <xsl:for-each select="$nodes"> <mxCell id="{@id}" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>{@label}</font>" style="{$nodeStyle}" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="{@x}" y="{@y}" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> </mxCell> </xsl:for-each>This approach would make it easier to maintain and update node styles consistently.
18-33: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Edge definitions look good, minor consistency improvement suggested
The edge definitions are well-structured and correctly implement both curved (edge1) and straight (edge2) paths. This demonstrates good flexibility in graph representation.
For improved consistency, consider standardizing the use of source and target points:
- Edge1 uses
exitX,exitY,entryX, andentryYattributes.- Edge2 uses
sourcePointandtargetPointelements.Standardizing on one approach (preferably the attributes) could improve readability and maintenance.
Example for edge2:
<mxCell id="edge2" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.4589;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.5672;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node1" target="node3"> <mxGeometry relative="1" as="geometry" /> </mxCell>This change would make both edge definitions more consistent.
graphviz2drawio/__main__.py (1)
38-40: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Approve changes with suggestions for further improvements
The modifications to the file writing process are a significant improvement. Creating the output directory if it doesn't exist prevents potential errors and enhances the robustness of the function.
However, consider the following suggestions for further improvement:
- Add specific error handling for the file writing process. For example:
try: out_path = pathlib.Path(outfile) out_path.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True) out_path.write_text(output) except PermissionError: stderr.write(f"{RED_TEXT}{BOLD}Error: Permission denied when writing to {outfile}\n{DEFAULT_TEXT}") raise except IOError as e: stderr.write(f"{RED_TEXT}{BOLD}Error writing to {outfile}: {str(e)}\n{DEFAULT_TEXT}") raise
- Consider checking for write permissions before attempting to create directories or write files:
if not os.access(out_path.parent, os.W_OK): stderr.write(f"{RED_TEXT}{BOLD}Error: No write permission for directory {out_path.parent}\n{DEFAULT_TEXT}") raise PermissionError(f"No write permission for directory {out_path.parent}")These additions would make the function more robust and provide clearer error messages to the user.
specs/directed/subgraph_multiple.xml (3)
6-11: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Cluster definitions are well-structured.
The "Frontend" and "Backend" cluster definitions are correctly implemented and styled. The use of HTML entities for formatting is appropriate in this context.
For consistency, consider aligning the
xcoordinate of both clusters. The "Frontend" cluster starts at x="25.0", while the "Backend" cluster starts at x="12.0". Aligning these might improve the visual layout.
12-23: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
LGTM: Node definitions are well-structured and consistent.
The definitions for React, expressjs, Bootstrap, and aws-sdk nodes are correctly implemented with appropriate styling and positioning.
Consider extracting common style attributes (font size, face, color) into a shared style definition to improve maintainability. This could be achieved using a separate style sheet or by defining a common style string that can be reused across nodes.
Example:
<mxStylesheet> <add as="defaultNodeStyle"> <add as="fontFamily" value="Times,serif"/> <add as="fontSize" value="14"/> <add as="fontColor" value="#000000"/> </add> </mxStylesheet>Then, you can reference this style in your node definitions:
<mxCell ... style="defaultNodeStyle;ellipse;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" .../>This approach would make it easier to update styles consistently across all nodes in the future.
24-35: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
LGTM: Edge definitions are correct and consistent.
The edge definitions connecting React to expressjs and expressjs to aws-sdk are well-structured and use appropriate styling.
To improve maintainability and reduce redundancy, consider defining a common edge style. This can be achieved similarly to the node style suggestion:
<mxStylesheet> <add as="defaultEdgeStyle"> <add as="endArrow" value="block"/> <add as="dashed" value="0"/> <add as="endFill" value="1"/> <add as="startArrow" value="none"/> <add as="startFill" value="0"/> <add as="strokeColor" value="black"/> <add as="strokeWidth" value="1"/> <add as="rounded" value="0"/> </add> </mxStylesheet>Then, you can reference this style in your edge definitions:
<mxCell id="edge1" style="defaultEdgeStyle" edge="1" source="node1" target="node3"> <mxGeometry relative="1" as="geometry"/> </mxCell>This approach would make it easier to update edge styles consistently and reduce the amount of repeated code.
specs/directed/subgraph_with_tables.xml (3)
6-13: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Cluster cells are well-defined with appropriate styling.
The
clust1andclust2cells are correctly structured with proper styling and formatting. The use of horizontal rules inclust2enhances readability.Consider using a consistent approach for geometry definition:
clust1uses relative positioning with an offset.clust2uses absolute positioning with x, y, width, and height.For better maintainability, you might want to choose one approach and apply it consistently across all cells.
14-29: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Node cells are well-defined, but there's room for improvement in consistency.
The node cells (
node1,node2,node3, andnode4) are correctly structured with appropriate styling and formatting. The use of horizontal rules in labels enhances readability.Consider the following improvements for consistency:
- Standardize positioning approach:
node1andnode2use relative positioning with offsets.node3andnode4use absolute positioning with x, y, width, and height.- Align stroke color definition:
node1andnode2havestrokeColor=none.node3andnode4havestrokeColor=black.Choose one approach for each of these aspects and apply it consistently across all nodes to improve maintainability and readability of the XML structure.
30-41: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Edge cells are correctly defined with proper styling and connections.
The edge cells (
edge1andedge2) are well-structured with appropriate styling attributes and correct node connections.For improved consistency, consider standardizing the approach for specifying source and target points:
edge1uses explicitsourcePointandtargetPointin the geometry.edge2usesexitX,exitY,entryX, andentryYattributes in the edge definition.Choosing one approach and applying it consistently across all edges would enhance maintainability.
specs/directed/invisible.xml (3)
6-20: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider improving consistency and accessibility of node definitions
The node definitions are well-structured, but consider the following suggestions:
- Consistency: Standardize the width of nodes. Currently, they vary (e.g., 56.5, 54.0, 83.5, 95.5, 67.75).
- Accessibility: Add
alttext to improve accessibility for screen readers.- Styling: Consider using CSS classes instead of inline styles for easier maintenance.
Example improvement for the eMMC node:
<mxCell id="node1" value="eMMC" style="node;strokeColor=blue;" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="10.38" y="21.5" width="80" height="36" as="geometry" /> <Object label="eMMC" alt="Electronic Multi-Media Card node" /> </mxCell>Apply similar changes to other nodes for consistency.
21-80: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance edge definitions for clarity and consistency
The edge definitions are functional, but consider the following improvements:
- Consistency: Standardize the edge styles. Some use
endArrow=nonewhile others useendArrow=block.- Clarity: Add
edgeStyleattribute to clearly define the routing style (e.g., orthogonal, curved).- Maintainability: Consider using named constants for colors and styles.
Example improvement for an edge:
<mxCell id="edge1" edge="1" source="node1" target="node2" value="Connection"> <mxGeometry relative="1" as="geometry" /> <mxCell style="edgeStyle=orthogonalEdgeStyle;endArrow=none;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;" /> </mxCell>Apply similar changes to other edges for consistency and clarity.
1-82: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider adding metadata and documentation
The mxGraphModel is structurally complete, but consider enhancing it with:
- Metadata: Add a
<mxMetadata>element with information like author, version, and last modified date.- Documentation: Include a
<mxDocumentation>element with a brief description of the diagram's purpose.- Custom Properties: Use
<mxCustomProperty>elements to add any project-specific metadata.Example additions:
<mxGraphModel grid="0"> <root> <mxCell id="0" /> <mxCell id="1" parent="0" /> <mxMetadata> <mxCustomProperty name="author" value="Your Name" /> <mxCustomProperty name="version" value="1.0" /> <mxCustomProperty name="lastModified" value="2023-05-10" /> </mxMetadata> <mxDocumentation> <![CDATA[ This diagram represents the system architecture for the embedded system, showing connections between SoC, memory components, and peripherals. ]]> </mxDocumentation> <!-- Existing content... --> </root> </mxGraphModel>These additions will improve the diagram's context and maintainability.
specs/undirected/fdpclust.xml (3)
6-14: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Cluster definitions are well-structured.
The cluster definitions are correct and consistent. The styling and geometry attributes are appropriately set to create a nested cluster structure.
For improved clarity, consider adding a
labelattribute to each cluster mxCell. This would make it easier to identify the purpose of each cluster in the XML, especially for larger graphs.
15-41: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Node definitions are consistent and well-defined.
The node definitions are correct and maintain a consistent structure. The styling and geometry attributes are appropriately set for each node.
For improved consistency, consider extracting the common style attributes into a separate style definition. This would reduce redundancy and make it easier to update styles globally. You could then reference this style using a
styleclassattribute on each node.
42-80: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Edge definitions are correctly structured.
The edge definitions are correct and maintain a consistent structure. The styling and geometry attributes are appropriately set for each edge, including the use of intermediate points for bent paths.
To improve clarity, consider adding comments or labels to the edges, especially for the more complex bent paths. This would make it easier to understand the purpose of each connection in the graph structure.
specs/directed/subgraph.xml (2)
6-45: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Node definitions are well-structured. Consider standardizing font sizes.
The node definitions are clear and well-structured, representing various components of a network. The use of different styles helps distinguish between node types, and the positioning information suggests a deliberate layout design.
For improved consistency, consider standardizing the font sizes. Currently, the "Services" node uses a 12px font, while other nodes use 13px. Unifying the font size could enhance the overall visual coherence of the diagram.
46-119: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Edge definitions are logically sound. Consider adding edge labels for clarity.
The edge definitions accurately represent connections between various services in the network. The consistent styling and custom routing contribute to a clean and readable diagram.
To enhance the diagram's informativeness, consider adding labels to some or all of the edges. This could provide additional context about the nature of the connections (e.g., "HTTP", "DB Query", "DNS Lookup"). Here's an example of how you could modify an edge to include a label:
<mxCell id="edge1" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=#7b8894;strokeColor=#7b8894;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node4" target="node5"> + <mxCell value="DNS Lookup" style="edgeLabel;html=1;align=center;verticalAlign=middle;resizable=0;points=[];" vertex="1" connectable="0" parent="edge1"> + <mxGeometry x="-0.3" y="0" relative="1" as="geometry"> + <mxPoint as="offset" /> + </mxGeometry> + </mxCell> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> <mxPoint x="244.66" y="429.0" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="287.40999999999997" y="429.0" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry> </mxCell>This addition would create a label "DNS Lookup" on the edge connecting the DNS node to the load balancer node, providing more context about the connection's purpose.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
specs/directed/compound.xml (3)
6-11: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Cluster definitions are correct. Consider using variables for repeated styles.
The cluster definitions for clust1 and clust2 are correctly implemented. They provide a proper grouping structure for the nodes in the graph.
For improved maintainability, consider defining the common style attributes as variables or in a separate style sheet. This would make it easier to update styles consistently across multiple elements.
12-35: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Node definitions are correct. Consider using a consistent order for style attributes.
The node definitions (node1 to node8) are correctly implemented with unique labels, positions, and dimensions. The style and font properties are consistent across all nodes.
For improved readability and maintainability, consider ordering the style attributes consistently across all node definitions. For example, you could follow this order: shape, alignment, font properties, colors, stroke properties.
36-105: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Edge definitions are correct. Consider simplifying complex curved edges.
The edge definitions (edge1 to edge11) are correctly implemented, properly connecting the nodes in the graph. The use of control points for curved edges adds visual complexity to the graph structure.
For edges with complex curved paths (e.g., edge7 on lines 54-63), consider evaluating if simpler paths could achieve the same visual effect. Simpler paths may improve rendering performance and make the graph easier to understand and maintain.
specs/gradient/angles.xml (2)
12-41: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM! Consider documenting gradient direction choices.
The nodes for Linear Angle Variations (n1 through n9) are well-defined and correctly positioned. The varying gradient directions (west, south, north) for different nodes are interesting. Consider adding a comment or documentation explaining the reasoning behind these gradient direction choices, as it might not be immediately obvious to other developers or users.
66-71: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM! Consider clarifying the purpose of the single edge.
The edge (edge1) is correctly defined, connecting node5 (180 degrees) to node14 (also 180 degrees). However, the purpose of this single edge in the overall diagram is not immediately clear. Consider adding a comment or documentation to explain the significance of this specific connection, or evaluate if additional edges are needed to fully represent the intended relationships between nodes.
specs/undirected/polylines.xml (3)
6-26: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Node definitions are consistent and well-structured.
The seven nodes (A through G) are defined consistently with appropriate attributes for id, value, style, and geometry. The use of Times New Roman font and black color is uniform across all nodes, which is good for consistency.
Consider extracting common style properties into a shared variable or constant to improve maintainability. This would make it easier to update styles across all nodes in the future if needed.
27-122: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Edge definitions are comprehensive and consistently styled.
The edge definitions properly connect all nodes, forming a complete graph. The styling is consistent across all edges, using black color and 1px width. The use of geometry points for curved edges adds visual interest to the graph layout.
To improve code organization and readability, consider grouping edges by their source node or by their geometric complexity (straight vs. curved). This could make the file easier to navigate and maintain, especially as the graph grows in complexity.
1-124: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Overall: Well-structured XML file defining a graph for visualization.
This new
polylines.xmlfile successfully defines a complete graph with 7 nodes (A through G) and their interconnecting edges using the mxGraphModel format. The structure is consistent and follows best practices for XML and mxGraph models.In the context of the PR objectives for "spec testing", this file serves as a good example of a specification file that can be used to test the graph visualization and conversion processes. It provides a complex enough structure to validate various aspects of the graphviz2drawio conversion, including node placement, edge routing, and styling.
As the project evolves, consider creating a template or schema for these specification files to ensure consistency across different graph types and to facilitate automated validation of the spec file structure.
specs/gradient/linear_angle.xml (2)
6-8: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Cluster cell is well-defined with appropriate styling.
The cluster cell (id="clust1") is correctly structured with a blue fill color and a green gradient, which aligns with the file name "linear_angle". The geometry is precisely defined, ensuring reproducibility.
Consider adding a comment to explain the significance of the gradient direction and color choices, which would improve maintainability and clarity for other developers.
1-13: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Overall, the XML structure is well-defined and appropriate for an mxGraph model.
The file
specs/gradient/linear_angle.xmlis correctly structured and follows the mxGraph XML format. The styling and geometry are precisely defined, which is excellent for reproducibility.To improve maintainability:
- Consider adding comments to explain the purpose of each major section (cluster and node).
- Verify the intentionality of the numbering sequence in the node cell, as discussed in the previous comment.
These minor improvements will enhance the clarity and maintainability of the file for future developers working on this project.
specs/gradient/radial_angle.xml (2)
6-8: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Cluster cell definition is appropriate.
The mxCell with id "clust1" is well-defined with appropriate styling attributes and geometry. The gradient colors and precise positioning contribute to the visual representation.
Consider adding a comment to explain the purpose of this cluster cell, especially if it represents a specific component in the original diagram.
9-13: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Node cell content is well-structured.
The mxCell with id "node1" contains a well-formatted HTML-like structure representing numbered items. The consistent styling and layout contribute to a clear visual representation.
Consider the following suggestions:
- Add a comment explaining the purpose of this numbered list and the significance of the skipped numbers (09, 19, 29, etc.).
- If this represents code lines or data, consider using a more semantic structure (e.g.,
<pre>or<code>tags) for better accessibility and potential future parsing.- The font size and face are hardcoded in each
<font>tag. Consider moving these style attributes to a CSS class for easier maintenance and consistency.specs/directed/cluster.xml (4)
6-11: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Cluster definitions are well-structured.
The cluster definitions for "process #1" and "process #2" are correctly implemented and use different styles to visually distinguish between them. This is good for clarity in the graph representation.
For improved consistency, consider aligning the x-coordinate of "process #2" to a round number (e.g., 140.0 instead of 139.0) to match the precision used for "process #1" (12.0).
12-41: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Node definitions are consistent and well-structured.
The node definitions for a0-a3, b0-b3, start, and end are implemented correctly with consistent styling within each group. The different styles help distinguish between node types, which is good for visual clarity.
For improved consistency, consider aligning the x-coordinate of node b1 (148.0) to match the other b* nodes (147.0 or 150.0). This will ensure all nodes in the "process #2" cluster are perfectly aligned.
42-123: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Edge definitions are correct and consistent.
The edge definitions are implemented correctly, with consistent style attributes and proper source and target node specifications. The use of a curved edge (edge8) adds visual interest and likely represents a specific relationship in the graph.
For improved consistency and readability, consider using a consistent number of decimal places for coordinates in the geometry definitions. For example, round all values to 2 decimal places.
1-125: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Overall, the specification file is well-structured and serves its purpose.
This XML file provides a comprehensive specification for a directed graph with clusters, which aligns with the pull request objective of improving the generation and testing of specification files. The file structure is correct, and the graph elements (clusters, nodes, and edges) are well-defined with appropriate styling.
Given that this file is likely generated automatically as part of the new
generate_specs.shscript mentioned in the PR objectives, consider the following suggestions for improving the generation process:
- Implement consistent precision for coordinate values (e.g., always use 2 decimal places).
- Ensure perfect alignment of nodes within the same cluster by using consistent x-coordinates.
These improvements will enhance the readability and consistency of the generated specification files, making them more valuable for testing and documentation purposes.
specs/undirected/polylines_curved.xml (3)
6-26: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider extracting common styles and using variables for improved maintainability.
The node definitions are consistent and well-structured. However, to improve readability and maintainability, consider the following suggestions:
- Extract common styles into a separate variable or constant, as many style attributes are repeated across nodes.
- Use variables for common dimensions (width and height) to ensure consistency and ease future modifications.
- Consider using a more semantic naming convention for node IDs, such as
node_a,node_b, etc., for improved readability.Example of style extraction:
<mxStylesheet> <add as="defaultVertexStyle"> <add as="verticalAlign" value="middle"/> <add as="html" value="1"/> <add as="rounded" value="0"/> <add as="labelBackgroundColor" value="none"/> <add as="strokeColor" value="black"/> <add as="fillColor" value="none"/> <add as="strokeWidth" value="1"/> <add as="dashed" value="0"/> </add> </mxStylesheet>Then, reference this style in each node:
<mxCell id="node_a" value="..." style="defaultVertexStyle" vertex="1"> ... </mxCell>
27-152: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider optimizing edge definitions for improved readability and maintainability.
The edge definitions are consistent and well-structured. However, to enhance readability and maintainability, consider the following suggestions:
- Extract common edge styles into a separate variable or constant, similar to the suggestion for nodes.
- Use more semantic naming for edge IDs, such as
edge_a_bfor an edge connecting nodes A and B.- Consider using a loop or a more compact representation in the source code to generate these edge definitions, which could reduce repetition and potential errors.
Example of style extraction:
<mxStylesheet> <add as="defaultEdgeStyle"> <add as="html" value="1"/> <add as="endArrow" value="none"/> <add as="dashed" value="0"/> <add as="endFill" value="0"/> <add as="startArrow" value="none"/> <add as="startFill" value="0"/> <add as="fillColor" value="black"/> <add as="strokeColor" value="black"/> <add as="strokeWidth" value="1"/> <add as="curved" value="1"/> </add> </mxStylesheet>Then, reference this style in each edge:
<mxCell id="edge_a_b" style="defaultEdgeStyle" edge="1" source="node_a" target="node_b"> ... </mxCell>
1-154: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Overall structure is correct, but consider adding documentation and exploring automation.
The file successfully defines an undirected graph with curved edges, which aligns with the PR objectives of improving specification file generation. To further enhance this file and the overall process:
- Add a comment at the beginning of the file explaining its purpose and how it relates to the
generate_specs.shscript mentioned in the PR objectives.- Consider automating the generation of this XML file using a script or tool, which could be integrated with the
generate_specs.shscript. This would make it easier to create and maintain similar specification files for different graph types.- Ensure that this file can be properly tested using the
test_specs.shscript mentioned in the PR objectives. You might want to add a comment indicating how this file should be validated.Example documentation comment:
<!-- This file defines an undirected graph with curved edges for testing purposes. It is generated by the generate_specs.sh script and used in conjunction with the test_specs.sh script to validate the graphviz2drawio conversion process. Graph properties: - Nodes: 7 (A to G) - Edges: 14 (undirected) - Edge style: Curved polylines -->specs/directed/bazel.xml (3)
6-29: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider improving node definitions for better readability and maintainability.
The node definitions are consistent and well-structured. However, consider the following suggestions:
- Use more descriptive IDs for nodes (e.g., "node_absl_random" instead of "node1").
- Consider extracting common styles into a separate style sheet or using style classes to reduce redundancy.
- For better maintainability, consider using variables or constants for common values like font sizes and colors.
Example of improved node definition:
<mxCell id="node_absl_random" value="<font class='node-font'>//absl/random:random</font>" style="node-style" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="161.75" y="4.0" width="148.75" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> </mxCell>Where "node-font" and "node-style" could be defined in a separate style sheet.
30-138: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider improving edge definitions for better readability and maintainability.
The edge definitions correctly represent the relationships between nodes. However, consider the following suggestions:
- Use more descriptive IDs for edges (e.g., "edge_random_to_distributions" instead of "edge1").
- Consider extracting common styles into a separate style sheet or using style classes to reduce redundancy.
- For curved edges, consider using named constants or variables for control points to improve maintainability.
Example of improved edge definition:
<mxCell id="edge_random_to_distributions" style="edge-style" parent="1" edge="1" source="node_absl_random" target="node_absl_distributions"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> <mxPoint x="218.35" y="40.410000000000025" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="116.68" y="139.97000000000003" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry> </mxCell>Where "edge-style" could be defined in a separate style sheet.
1-140: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider improving overall file structure and documentation.
While the file is functional, consider the following improvements:
- Add a comment at the beginning of the file explaining its purpose and structure.
- Group nodes and edges separately for better organization.
- Consider using a consistent indentation style throughout the file.
- Add comments to explain the significance of different node groups or important edges.
- If this file is generated, consider adding a comment indicating it's auto-generated and should not be manually edited.
Example of improved file structure:
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?> <!-- This file represents the dependency graph of the absl/random library components. It is used for visualization in draw.io or similar tools. Structure: - Nodes represent library components - Edges represent dependencies between components --> <mxGraphModel grid="0"> <root> <mxCell id="0" /> <mxCell id="1" parent="0" /> <!-- Nodes --> <!-- ... node definitions ... --> <!-- Edges --> <!-- ... edge definitions ... --> </root> </mxGraphModel>These changes would significantly improve the readability and maintainability of the file.
specs/undirected/process.xml (2)
36-137: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Edge definitions are well-structured and visually diverse.
The 13 edge definitions (edge1 to edge13) are consistently structured with appropriate attributes for styling and positioning. The mix of straight and curved edges adds visual interest to the diagram, and the control points for curved edges are precisely defined.
For better consistency, consider extracting common edge styles into a separate style definition. This would make it easier to maintain and update edge styles across the diagram. For example:
<mxStylesheet> <add as="defaultEdgeStyle"> <add as="endArrow" value="none"/> <add as="dashed" value="0"/> <add as="endFill" value="0"/> <add as="startArrow" value="none"/> <add as="startFill" value="0"/> <add as="strokeColor" value="black"/> <add as="strokeWidth" value="1"/> </add> </mxStylesheet>Then, you can simplify edge definitions by referencing this style:
- <mxCell id="edge1" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=0;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.2739;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.7254;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node1" target="node2"> + <mxCell id="edge1" style="rounded=0;exitX=0.2739;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.7254;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node1" target="node2">This change would need to be applied to all edge definitions, with curved edges retaining their
curved=1attribute.
6-35: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Node definitions are consistent and well-structured.
The 10 node definitions (node1 to node10) are consistently structured with appropriate attributes for styling and positioning. The use of ellipse shapes and uniform font styling (Times New Roman, 14px, black) contributes to a cohesive visual representation.
Consider adding
fontColorattribute to thestylestring for better accessibility and easier color management. For example:- <mxCell id="node1" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>run</font>" style="ellipse;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> + <mxCell id="node1" value="run" style="ellipse;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;fontSize=14;fontFamily=Times,serif;fontColor=#000000;" parent="1" vertex="1">This change would need to be applied to all node definitions.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
specs/gradient/cluster.xml (4)
12-41: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Well-defined nodes with distinct styles
The node definitions are comprehensive and visually appealing. Each node has a unique gradient style that helps distinguish between different stages in the processes. The consistent sizing and font styling contribute to a clean and professional look.
Consider making the start and end nodes more visually distinct from the process nodes. You could use a different shape or a more contrasting color scheme. For example:
- <mxCell id="node10" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>start</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=yellow;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;gradientColor=brown;gradientDirection=radial;" parent="1" vertex="1"> + <mxCell id="node10" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>start</font>" style="shape=mxgraph.flowchart.terminator;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=green;strokeWidth=2;dashed=0;gradientColor=lime;gradientDirection=radial;" parent="1" vertex="1">Apply a similar change to the "end" node for consistency.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
1-125: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Suggestions for improved accessibility and maintainability
The diagram is well-structured and visually appealing. To further improve its accessibility and maintainability, consider the following suggestions:
Add comments or documentation within the XML to explain the purpose of each process and significant nodes or transitions. This will help future maintainers understand the diagram's intent.
Consider using more descriptive ids for nodes and edges instead of generic names like "node1" or "edge1". This can make it easier to understand the purpose of each element without relying solely on visual inspection.
For accessibility, consider adding
alttext to complex shapes or important nodes to describe their function. This can be done by adding analtattribute to themxCellelements.Example implementation of these suggestions:
+ <!-- Process 1: Description of the first process --> <mxCell id="clust1" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>process #1</font>" style="verticalAlign=top;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=lightgrey;fillColor=blue;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;gradientColor=yellow;gradientDirection=north;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="12.0" y="48.0" width="90.0" height="292.5" as="geometry" /> </mxCell> - <mxCell id="node1" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>a0</font>" style="ellipse;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=yellow;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;gradientColor=green;gradientDirection=south;" parent="1" vertex="1"> + <mxCell id="process1_start" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>a0</font>" style="ellipse;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=yellow;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;gradientColor=green;gradientDirection=south;" parent="1" vertex="1" alt="Start node of Process 1"> <mxGeometry x="40.0" y="80.5" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> </mxCell>These changes can significantly improve the diagram's clarity and maintainability for both visual inspection and programmatic analysis.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
6-11: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Well-defined clusters with appealing gradients
The cluster definitions for "process #1" and "process #2" are well-structured and visually appealing with gradient coloring. They provide a clear separation of the two processes in the diagram.
Consider using the same stroke color for both clusters to maintain consistency. For example, you could use blue for both:
- <mxCell id="clust1" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>process #1</font>" style="verticalAlign=top;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=lightgrey;fillColor=blue;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;gradientColor=yellow;gradientDirection=north;" parent="1" vertex="1"> + <mxCell id="clust1" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>process #1</font>" style="verticalAlign=top;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=blue;fillColor=blue;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;gradientColor=yellow;gradientDirection=north;" parent="1" vertex="1">📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.<mxCell id="clust1" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>process #1</font>" style="verticalAlign=top;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=blue;fillColor=blue;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;gradientColor=yellow;gradientDirection=north;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="12.0" y="48.0" width="90.0" height="292.5" as="geometry" /> </mxCell> <mxCell id="clust2" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>process #2</font>" style="verticalAlign=top;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=blue;fillColor=blue;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;gradientColor=yellow;gradientDirection=north;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="139.0" y="48.0" width="73.0" height="292.5" as="geometry" /> </mxCell>
42-123: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Well-defined edges with logical connections
The edge definitions create a clear and logical flow between nodes. The use of curved paths for some edges (e.g., edge8) adds visual interest to the diagram. The consistent styling with black color and block arrows contributes to a clean look.
To improve clarity, consider adding labels to some of the key edges, especially those that represent important transitions or decisions in the process. For example:
- <mxCell id="edge7" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.7157;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.1567;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node2" target="node8"> + <mxCell id="edge7" value="Transition" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.7157;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.1567;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node2" target="node8">📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.<mxCell id="edge1" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5000;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.5000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node1" target="node2"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> <mxPoint x="67.0" y="116.80000000000001" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="67.0" y="140.95999999999998" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry> </mxCell> <mxCell id="edge2" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5000;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.5000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node2" target="node3"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> <mxPoint x="67.0" y="188.8" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="67.0" y="212.96" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry> </mxCell> <mxCell id="edge7" value="Transition" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.7157;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.1567;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node2" target="node8"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> <mxPoint x="78.65" y="186.97" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="155.46" y="288.89" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry> </mxCell> <mxCell id="edge3" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5000;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.5000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node3" target="node4"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> <mxPoint x="67.0" y="260.8" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="67.0" y="284.96" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry> </mxCell> <mxCell id="edge8" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;curved=1;exitX=0.2454;exitY=0.0000;entryX=0.1172;entryY=1.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node4" target="node1"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> <mxPoint x="53.25" y="298.57" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="46.33" y="123.41000000000003" as="targetPoint" /> <Array as="points"> <mxPoint x="14.392763731473408" y="206.5" /> <mxPoint x="35.16341597705859" y="138.94925931995078" /> </Array> </mxGeometry> </mxCell> <mxCell id="edge9" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.7178;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.0000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node4" target="node9"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> <mxPoint x="78.76" y="331.04" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="99.94" y="359.0" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry> </mxCell> <mxCell id="edge4" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5046;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.4924;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node5" target="node6"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> <mxPoint x="174.25" y="116.80000000000001" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="174.59" y="140.95999999999998" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry> </mxCell> <mxCell id="edge5" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5091;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.4848;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node6" target="node7"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> <mxPoint x="175.49" y="188.8" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="176.18" y="212.96" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry> </mxCell> <mxCell id="edge10" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.1452;exitY=1.0000;entryX=1.0000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node7" target="node4"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> <mxPoint x="157.84" y="255.69" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="95.58" y="295.31" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry> </mxCell> <mxCell id="edge6" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.4863;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.5226;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node7" target="node8"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> <mxPoint x="176.26" y="260.8" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="175.22" y="284.96" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry> </mxCell> <mxCell id="edge11" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.2781;exitY=1.0000;entryX=1.0000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node8" target="node9"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> <mxPoint x="162.02" y="331.04" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="140.44" y="359.0" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry> </mxCell> <mxCell id="edge12" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.3782;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.8287;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node10" target="node1"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> <mxPoint x="110.77" y="35.98000000000002" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="84.75" y="72.55000000000001" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry> </mxCell> <mxCell id="edge13" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.6242;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.1652;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node10" target="node5"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> <mxPoint x="129.41" y="35.98000000000002" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="155.92" y="72.55000000000001" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry> </mxCell>specs/directed/git.xml (3)
6-33: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Node definitions are comprehensive, but could be enhanced.
The nodes accurately represent key Git concepts and provide useful information. However, consider the following suggestions for improvement:
- Add a node for "remote repository" to complement the "remote branch" node.
- Include a node for "git config" to represent Git configuration.
- Consider adding brief descriptions for less obvious concepts like "HEAD".
These additions would make the diagram more comprehensive and educational for users less familiar with Git.
34-125: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
⚠️ Potential issueEdge definitions are mostly correct, but some improvements are needed.
The edges represent Git operations well, but consider the following suggestions:
Edge 1 (lines 34-39): The purpose of this dashed edge between "changes in the working tree" and "git stash [push]" is unclear. Consider adding a label or removing if not necessary.
Edge 3 (lines 40-53): The label includes both "git add" and "git reset". It might be clearer to have separate edges for these operations, as they work in opposite directions.
Edge 4 (lines 63-71): The "git stash pop" operation should also affect the staging area. Consider adding an edge to represent this.
Add an edge to represent "git fetch" between the remote branch and local branches.
Consider adding edges for "git merge" and "git rebase" operations.
These changes would provide a more complete and accurate representation of Git workflows.
1-127: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Overall, the Git workflow diagram is well-structured but could be enhanced.
The XML file provides a good visual representation of Git operations using the mxGraphModel format. The nodes and edges effectively illustrate key Git concepts and commands. However, there are opportunities for improvement:
- Add nodes for "remote repository" and "git config".
- Clarify or remove the unclear edge between "changes in the working tree" and "git stash [push]".
- Separate "git add" and "git reset" into distinct edges.
- Represent "git stash pop" affecting both working tree and staging area.
- Add edges for "git fetch", "git merge", and "git rebase" operations.
These enhancements would make the diagram more comprehensive and valuable for users at various levels of Git expertise.
specs/undirected/ER.xml (3)
6-41: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Node definitions are well-structured and appropriate for an ER diagram.
The nodes are consistently defined with proper attributes, styles, and geometries. The use of different shapes and colors for entities, attributes, and relationships enhances the diagram's clarity.
Consider adding a comment at the beginning of this section to briefly explain the node types (entities, attributes, relationships) and their visual representations. This would improve maintainability and make it easier for other developers to understand the diagram structure.
42-135: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Edge definitions accurately represent relationships in the ER diagram.
The edges are correctly defined, connecting appropriate nodes and including cardinality labels where necessary. The consistent style and use of a curved edge for clarity demonstrate good design practices.
Consider adding comments to group related edges or explain complex relationships (like the curved edge). This would enhance maintainability and make it easier to understand the diagram's structure. For example:
<!-- Relationship between Student and Course --> <mxCell id="edge11" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=0;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;curved=1;exitX=0.4955;exitY=0.0000;entryX=0.6941;entryY=1.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node11" target="node4"> <!-- ... existing content ... --> </mxCell>
1-137: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Overall, the ER diagram is well-defined and follows best practices.
This XML file successfully represents an Entity-Relationship diagram for a course-student-institute system using mxGraphModel. The structure is clear, consistent, and follows appropriate conventions for ER diagrams.
To further improve the file:
- Consider adding a comment at the top of the file explaining the purpose of this diagram and its main components.
- If this file is part of a larger system, ensure that entity and relationship names (e.g., "course", "student", "C-I") are consistent with other parts of the system or documentation.
specs/gradient/colors.xml (5)
1-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Overall structure looks good, consider grid setting
The XML structure for the mxGraphModel is correct. However, note that the grid attribute is set to "0". This might affect the layout and alignment of elements in the diagram. Consider if a non-zero grid value would be beneficial for element alignment.
6-17: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Cluster definitions are well-structured
The cluster definitions for "X11 Colors", "SVG Colors", "Brewer - accent", and "Brewer - blues" are consistently structured and styled. They effectively group related nodes and use appropriate visual attributes.
Consider adding ARIA labels or titles to these cluster elements to improve accessibility for screen readers.
18-89: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Node definitions are visually diverse and well-structured
The node definitions effectively represent various colors using different shapes and gradient combinations. Each node has a unique identifier and is appropriately positioned within its cluster.
For consistency, consider standardizing the node shapes within each cluster (e.g., all ellipses or all rectangles) unless the shape variation carries specific meaning.
90-107: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Edge definitions provide clear vertical connections
The edge definitions correctly connect nodes across different clusters, using consistent styling. This helps illustrate relationships between color categories.
Consider adding labels to the edges to explain the nature of these relationships, if applicable to the diagram's purpose.
1-109: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Well-structured and visually effective diagram definition
This XML file successfully defines a complex color-related diagram using the mxGraphModel format. The structure is consistent, and the visual elements (clusters, nodes, and edges) are well-defined to create a rich representation of color categories and their relationships.
To further enhance this diagram:
- Consider adding a title or description element to provide context for the overall diagram.
- If this file is part of a larger system, ensure that the color representations are consistent with any color utilities or constants used in the main application.
- For maintainability, consider extracting common styles (e.g., font definitions, stroke widths) into separate style definitions that can be referenced across multiple elements.
specs/directed/UML_Class_diagram.xml (3)
6-32: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider improvements for node definitions
The node definitions are generally well-structured, but consider the following suggestions:
The use of HTML within the
valueattribute might make the XML more difficult to parse and maintain. Consider using a more structured approach or separate attributes for styling and content.Some nodes (e.g., node5, node6, node7, node8) have their
strokeColorset to "none". Ensure this is intentional, as it might affect the visibility of these elements in the diagram.The content of the nodes (properties and methods) is represented by placeholder text ("..."). For a specification file, it would be more informative to include actual properties and methods, even if they are examples.
Would you like assistance in refactoring the node definitions to address these points?
1-138: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Overall assessment: Functional but with room for improvement
The
UML_Class_diagram.xmlfile successfully represents a UML Class diagram using the mxGraphModel format. The overall structure is correct, and the diagram elements (nodes and edges) are well-defined. However, there are several areas where the file could be improved:
Enhance node definitions by:
- Using a more structured approach for content and styling
- Ensuring visibility of all nodes (check
strokeColorsettings)- Replacing placeholder content with actual or example properties and methods
Improve edge definitions by:
- Adding labels to all edges for clarity
- Evaluating the use of curved lines for readability
- Defining explicit positioning for edge labels
Consider the overall maintainability and parseability of the XML structure, especially regarding the use of HTML within attribute values.
These improvements would make the specification file more informative, easier to maintain, and potentially more useful for both human readers and automated tools.
Would you like assistance in implementing these improvements or creating a style guide for future UML diagram specifications?
33-136: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance edge definitions for clarity
The edge definitions are generally well-structured, but consider the following improvements:
Add labels to all edges to clearly indicate the type of relationship they represent. For example, edge4 (lines 63-68) is missing a label.
Evaluate the use of curved lines for some relationships (e.g., edges 6-11). While they may improve the visual appeal, they might also affect the readability of the diagram. Consider using straight lines for simpler relationships.
Define explicit positioning for edge labels to prevent potential overlapping or misplacement in the rendered diagram. This can be achieved by adding label position attributes to the edge definitions.
Here's an example of how you could improve edge4:
- <mxCell id="edge4" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=0;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.2944;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.7902;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node3" target="node4"> + <mxCell id="edge4" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=0;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.2944;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.7902;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node3" target="node4"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> <mxPoint x="229.16" y="210.20000000000005" as="sourcePoint" /> <mxPoint x="209.96" y="252.02999999999997" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry> </mxCell> + <mxCell id="label_edge4" style="edgeLabel;html=1;align=center;verticalAlign=middle;resizable=0;points=[];" parent="edge4" vertex="1" connectable="0"> + <mxGeometry x="-0.5" y="0" relative="1" as="geometry"> + <mxPoint as="offset" /> + </mxGeometry> + <mxCell style="text;html=1;strokeColor=none;fillColor=none;align=center;verticalAlign=middle;whiteSpace=wrap;rounded=0;" parent="label_edge4" vertex="1"> + <mxValue><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif' color='#000000'>association</font></mxValue> + </mxCell> + </mxCell>This example adds a label to edge4 and positions it in the middle of the edge. You can apply similar improvements to other edges as needed.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
specs/directed/Twelve_colors.xml (3)
6-43: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Node definitions are well-structured and consistent.
The 12 node definitions are properly structured with consistent attributes for id, value, style, and geometry. The use of HTML in the
valueattribute for custom text formatting is a nice touch.Consider reordering the definition of node12 (lines 42-43) to maintain a sequential order with the other nodes. This would improve readability and make it easier to track all nodes.
45-169: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Edge definitions are well-structured and visually informative.
The 21 edge definitions are properly structured with consistent attributes for style, source, and target. The edge colors matching their source nodes provide a good visual cue for understanding the graph structure.
To improve maintainability, consider using variables or constants for common style properties, such as stroke width and arrow types. This would make it easier to update these properties consistently across all edges if needed in the future. For example:
<mxGraphModel grid="0"> <root> <!-- ... existing code ... --> <mxStylesheet> <add as="edgeStyle"> <add as="strokeWidth" value="1.5"/> <add as="endArrow" value="block"/> <add as="endFill" value="0"/> <add as="startArrow" value="none"/> <add as="startFill" value="0"/> </add> </mxStylesheet> <!-- ... edge definitions ... --> <mxCell id="edge1" style="edgeStyle;fillColor=green;strokeColor=green;" ... /> <!-- ... more edge definitions ... --> </root> </mxGraphModel>This approach would centralize the common edge properties and make it easier to maintain consistent styling across all edges.
1-172: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Well-structured graph definition aligning with PR objectives.
This new XML file successfully defines a complex graph structure with 12 colored nodes and 21 edges, which aligns well with the PR objective of improving the generation and testing of specification files. The use of the mxGraphModel format provides precise control over node and edge properties, facilitating accurate graph visualization.
The file structure is consistent and well-organized, making it a good example for testing the conversion process mentioned in the PR objectives. It can serve as a comprehensive test case for the
test_specs.shscript to validate the accuracy of the conversion functionality.Consider incorporating this file into your test suite for the
test_specs.shscript. Its complex structure with various node colors and edge connections makes it an excellent candidate for thorough testing of the conversion process.specs/directed/fsm.xml (3)
6-32: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Node definitions are well-structured.
The nine states (LR_0 to LR_8) are correctly defined with appropriate attributes, including unique ids, labels, styles, and precise geometry. The use of doubleEllipse for some nodes (LR_0, LR_4, LR_6, LR_8) is noted.
Consider adding a comment or documentation to explain the significance of the doubleEllipse nodes (e.g., if they represent start or accept states in the FSM).
33-183: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Edge definitions are comprehensive and well-structured.
The edges connecting the FSM states are correctly defined with appropriate attributes, including unique ids, styles, source and target nodes, and labels. The use of curved paths for some edges enhances the diagram's readability.
Consider adding documentation to explain the meaning of the transition symbols (e.g., SS(B), S(A), S(b)) to improve the understanding of the FSM's behavior.
1-185: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Overall, the FSM representation is well-defined and structured.
This XML file provides a comprehensive and visually informative representation of a Finite State Machine using the mxGraphModel format, ensuring compatibility with draw.io. The states and transitions are clearly defined with appropriate attributes and styling.
To further improve the file:
- Consider adding a comment at the beginning of the file explaining the purpose and context of this FSM (e.g., what language or system it represents).
- If possible, include a legend or documentation explaining the meaning of different node shapes (doubleEllipse vs. ellipse) and transition symbols (SS, S) to enhance understandability.
specs/directed/pprof.xml (3)
12-71: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Node elements are well-structured and informative.
The node elements are correctly formatted and provide valuable profiling information, including function names, execution counts, and percentages. The styling of nodes is consistent with their importance in the profile.
Consider increasing the minimum font size for better readability. Some nodes have very small font sizes (e.g., 8px) which might be difficult to read, especially on high-resolution displays. For example:
- <mxCell id="node6" value="<font style='font-size: 8.0px;' face='Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif' color='#000000'>file_read<br/>0 of 62 (14.76%)</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=#b2682e;fillColor=#ede3db;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> + <mxCell id="node6" value="<font style='font-size: 10.0px;' face='Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif' color='#000000'>file_read<br/>0 of 62 (14.76%)</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=#b2682e;fillColor=#ede3db;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1">Apply this change to all nodes with font sizes smaller than 10px for improved readability.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
72-155: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Edge elements are correctly structured.
The edge elements are properly formatted and establish the correct connections between nodes, representing function call relationships in the profile. The consistent style across all edges is appropriate for this type of graph.
Consider adding edge labels or weights to show call counts between functions. This could provide additional valuable information about the relationships between functions. For example:
- <mxCell id="edge1" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=#000000;strokeColor=#000000;strokeWidth=1;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node1" target="node3"> + <mxCell id="edge1" value="178" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=#000000;strokeColor=#000000;strokeWidth=1;edgeLabel;resizable=0;align=center;verticalAlign=middle;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node1" target="node3"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1" /> </mxCell>This change adds a label "178" to the edge, which could represent the number of calls from
node1tonode3. Apply similar changes to other edges where call count information is available and relevant.Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
6-11: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Cluster and title elements are well-structured.
The cluster and title elements are correctly formatted and provide good context for the profiling data. The title includes useful information such as the file name, node count, and a link for further details.
Consider adding an
idattribute to the<font>tag in the title element for easier styling and potential future references. For example:- <mxCell id="node1" value="<font style='font-size: 16.0px;' face='Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif' color='#000000'>File: [stackcollapse]<br/>Showing nodes accounting for 380, 90.48% of 420 total<br/>Dropped 120 nodes (cum <= 2)<br/>Showing top 20 nodes out of 110<br/>See https://git.io/JfYMW for how to read the graph</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=#f8f8f8;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> + <mxCell id="node1" value="<font id='title-text' style='font-size: 16.0px;' face='Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif' color='#000000'>File: [stackcollapse]<br/>Showing nodes accounting for 380, 90.48% of 420 total<br/>Dropped 120 nodes (cum <= 2)<br/>Showing top 20 nodes out of 110<br/>See https://git.io/JfYMW for how to read the graph</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=#f8f8f8;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1">📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.<mxCell id="clust1" value="" style="verticalAlign=top;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="106.38" y="12.0" width="428.0" height="144.5" as="geometry" /> </mxCell> <mxCell id="node1" value="<font id='title-text' style='font-size: 16.0px;' face='Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif' color='#000000'>File: [stackcollapse]<br/>Showing nodes accounting for 380, 90.48% of 420 total<br/>Dropped 120 nodes (cum <= 2)<br/>Showing top 20 nodes out of 110<br/>See https://git.io/JfYMW for how to read the graph</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=#f8f8f8;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="114.0" y="20.0" width="412.75" height="128.5" as="geometry" /> </mxCell>specs/directed/psg.xml (3)
6-35: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Node definitions are comprehensive and well-structured.
The node definitions are thorough, with appropriate use of HTML formatting for labels and specific styling attributes. This contributes to a clear visual representation of the graph states.
Consider adding comments to explain the meaning of different node styles or colors used in the graph. This would enhance the maintainability of the file for future updates.
36-188: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Edge definitions are detailed and visually informative.
The edge definitions are comprehensive, with appropriate styling, directional attributes, and labels. The use of curved paths for some edges enhances the visual clarity of the graph.
Consider grouping related edges together in the XML structure. This could improve readability and make future modifications easier. For example, you could group all outgoing edges from a particular node together.
1-190: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Overall: Well-structured and comprehensive mxGraphModel definition.
This XML file provides a detailed and visually informative representation of a directed graph, likely representing a state machine or parser. The node and edge definitions are thorough, with appropriate use of attributes for styling and layout.
To further improve this file:
- Consider adding comments to explain the overall purpose of the graph and any color-coding or styling conventions used.
- Group related edges together in the XML structure to enhance readability and maintainability.
- If this file is generated automatically, consider adding a comment at the top of the file indicating the source or generation method, which would be helpful for future maintenance.
specs/gradient/datastruct.xml (2)
6-43: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Node definitions are well-structured and visually distinct.
The
mxCellelements representing nodes are consistently defined with appropriate attributes forid,value,style, andgeometry. The use of HTML in thevalueattribute allows for rich text formatting, which is good for readability in the graph.Consider extracting common styles into named style definitions to improve maintainability. This can be done by defining styles in a separate section and referencing them by name in the
styleattribute. For example:<mxStylesheet> <add as="defaultNode"> <add as="shape" value="rectangle"/> <add as="strokeColor" value="black"/> <add as="strokeWidth" value="1"/> </add> <!-- Add more named styles here --> </mxStylesheet>Then, in the
mxCellelements, you can reference these styles:<mxCell style="defaultNode;fillColor=yellow;gradientColor=blue;gradientDirection=north;" ...>This approach would make it easier to maintain consistent styles across multiple nodes and simplify future updates.
45-195: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Edge definitions are well-structured with precise connection points.
The
mxCellelements representing edges are consistently defined with appropriate attributes for style and connection points. The use ofexitX,exitY,entryX, andentryYattributes ensures accurate connections between nodes. The curved edges with control points add visual appeal to the graph.To improve clarity and maintainability, consider the following suggestions:
Extract the common edge style into a named style definition, similar to the suggestion for nodes. This would reduce repetition and make it easier to update styles globally.
Add comments or group related edges to improve readability, especially for complex graphs. For example:
<!-- Edges connecting node1 to its children --> <mxCell id="0" style="edgeStyle=orthogonalEdgeStyle;rounded=0;orthogonalLoop=1;jettySize=auto;html=1;" edge="1" parent="1" source="node1" target="node2"> <!-- ... --> </mxCell> <mxCell id="1" style="edgeStyle=orthogonalEdgeStyle;rounded=0;orthogonalLoop=1;jettySize=auto;html=1;" edge="1" parent="1" source="node1" target="node3"> <!-- ... --> </mxCell> <!-- Edges representing data flow --> <mxCell id="2" style="edgeStyle=orthogonalEdgeStyle;rounded=0;orthogonalLoop=1;jettySize=auto;html=1;" edge="1" parent="1" source="node2" target="node4"> <!-- ... --> </mxCell>These changes would make the XML structure more organized and easier to maintain, especially as the graph complexity grows.
specs/directed/datastruct.xml (3)
6-43: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider refactoring node styles for better maintainability.
The node definitions are well-structured and consistent. However, there are a few points to consider:
The use of inline styles (e.g.,
style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;...") might make maintenance difficult in the future. Consider defining named styles and referencing them instead.Some nodes contain multiple values separated by horizontal rules. This suggests a complex data structure. Ensure that this representation is clear and consistent with the intended data model.
The presence of memory addresses (e.g.,
0xf7fc4380) indicates that this might be a representation of a data structure in memory. Make sure this level of detail is necessary for the visualization's purpose.To improve maintainability, consider extracting common styles into named style definitions. For example:
<mxStylesheet> <add as="defaultNodeStyle"> <add as="shape" value="rectangle"/> <add as="verticalAlign" value="middle"/> <add as="html" value="1"/> <add as="rounded" value="0"/> <add as="labelBackgroundColor" value="none"/> <add as="strokeColor" value="black"/> <add as="fillColor" value="none"/> <add as="strokeWidth" value="1"/> <add as="dashed" value="0"/> </add> </mxStylesheet>Then, reference this style in your node definitions:
<mxCell id="node1" value="..." style="defaultNodeStyle" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="4.0" y="66.19000000000005" width="72.25" height="53.5" as="geometry" /> </mxCell>This approach would make it easier to maintain consistent styles across all nodes and to make global style changes when needed.
45-200: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider simplifying edge styles and paths for better readability.
The edge definitions are consistent and well-structured, creating a complex network that likely represents pointer relationships in a data structure. However, there are a few suggestions for improvement:
Similar to the nodes, edges use inline styles. Consider extracting common styles into named definitions for better maintainability.
Some edges use complex curved paths with multiple control points. While this can create visually appealing curves, it might make the graph harder to read or maintain. Consider simplifying these paths where possible.
The mix of curved and straight edges (e.g.,
curved=1vs.rounded=0) might be intentional, but ensure it consistently represents different types of relationships in your data structure.To improve maintainability and readability, consider:
- Extracting common edge styles:
<mxStylesheet> <add as="defaultEdgeStyle"> <add as="endArrow" value="block"/> <add as="dashed" value="0"/> <add as="endFill" value="1"/> <add as="startArrow" value="none"/> <add as="startFill" value="0"/> <add as="strokeColor" value="black"/> <add as="strokeWidth" value="1"/> </add> </mxStylesheet>
Simplifying complex paths by reducing the number of control points or using auto-routing features if available in your graph visualization tool.
Consistently using either curved or straight edges for similar types of relationships in your data structure.
Example of a simplified edge definition:
<mxCell id="0" style="defaultEdgeStyle;curved=1;" edge="1" parent="1" source="node1" target="node2"> <mxGeometry relative="1" as="geometry"/> </mxCell>These changes would make the graph easier to maintain and potentially more readable, while still accurately representing the underlying data structure.
1-202: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Overall, the graph representation is well-structured but could benefit from some refactoring.
This XML file provides a detailed representation of a complex data structure using the mxGraphModel format. It aligns well with the PR objective of enhancing the generation and testing of specification files. The graph effectively visualizes memory addresses, values, and relationships within the data structure, which can be valuable for debugging and understanding the system's internal state.
However, to improve long-term maintainability and readability, consider the following recommendations:
- Extract inline styles into named style definitions for both nodes and edges.
- Simplify complex curved paths where possible to enhance readability.
- Ensure consistent use of curved vs. straight edges to represent different types of relationships.
- If not already implemented, consider automating the generation of this graph from your actual data structures to ensure accuracy and ease of updating.
These improvements would make the specification file easier to maintain and update as your data structures evolve, supporting the overall goal of improving the specification file generation process.
specs/directed/crazy.xml (3)
1-473: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider optimizing the overall layout for better readability.
The Unix family tree representation is comprehensive and well-structured. However, consider the following suggestions to enhance its readability and usability:
- Grouping: Consider grouping related systems (e.g., BSD variants, System V variants) using mxCell groups. This can make the relationships clearer.
- Layers: Utilize layers to separate different eras or major branches of Unix evolution. This can help in focusing on specific parts of the evolution.
- Annotations: Add text annotations to explain significant branching points or major evolutionary steps.
- Consistent Spacing: Ensure consistent vertical spacing between generations to better represent the chronological flow.
To implement grouping, you could add group cells like this:
<mxCell id="group_bsd" parent="1" vertex="1" style="group"> <mxGeometry x="0" y="0" width="500" height="300" as="geometry" /> </mxCell>Then, set the parent of BSD-related nodes to "group_bsd" instead of "1".
For layers, you can add layer elements:
<mxCell id="layer_early_unix" parent="0" />And then set the parent of early Unix systems to this layer instead of "1".
These changes would enhance the overall structure and make the diagram more intuitive and easier to navigate.
129-471: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider optimizing edge definitions for better maintainability.
The edge definitions are functionally correct, but there are opportunities to improve readability and maintainability:
- Use meaningful ids: Instead of "edge1", "edge2", etc., consider using ids that describe the connection, e.g., "edge_5thEdition_to_6thEdition".
- Standardize edge styles: Some edges use curved paths while others are straight. Consider using a consistent style unless the variation is intentional.
- Consider adding comments: For complex relationships, adding comments to explain the significance of certain connections could be helpful.
Here's an example of how you could improve an edge definition:
- <mxCell id="edge1" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.3849;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.6636;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node1" target="node2"> + <mxCell id="edge_5thEdition_to_6thEdition" style="html=1;endArrow=block;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node1" target="node2"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> - <mxPoint x="718.1" y="43.0" as="sourcePoint" /> - <mxPoint x="658.25" y="79.98000000000002" as="targetPoint" /> </mxGeometry> </mxCell>This change simplifies the edge style, uses a more descriptive id, and removes unnecessary source and target points since they're already defined by the source and target attributes.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.<mxCell id="edge_5thEdition_to_6thEdition" style="html=1;endArrow=block;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node1" target="node2"> <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> </mxGeometry> </mxCell>
6-122: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider standardizing node styles for better consistency and readability.
While the node definitions are structurally correct, there are opportunities to improve consistency:
- Standardize font sizes: Currently, all nodes use font-size 14px. Consider using different sizes for different levels of the hierarchy if needed.
- Use consistent color naming: Some colors are named (e.g., "deepskyblue"), while others use hex codes (e.g., "#ee8262"). Standardizing to either named colors or hex codes would improve consistency.
- Consider grouping nodes by type or era: You could use similar fill colors for nodes from the same era or type of Unix system, which would make the diagram more intuitive.
Here's an example of how you could standardize a node's style:
- <mxCell id="node1" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Helvetica-Outline' color='#000000'>5th Edition</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=#ee8262;fillColor=#ee8262;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> + <mxCell id="node1" value="<font style='font-size: 14px;' face='Helvetica-Outline' color='#000000'>5th Edition</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=#EE8262;fillColor=#EE8262;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1">Apply similar changes to other nodes for consistency.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.<mxCell id="node1" value="<font style='font-size: 14px;' face='Helvetica-Outline' color='#000000'>5th Edition</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=#EE8262;fillColor=#EE8262;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="658.19" y="4.0" width="155.64" height="39.3599999999999" as="geometry" /> </mxCell> <mxCell id="node2" value="<font style='font-size: 14px;' face='Helvetica-Outline' color='#000000'>6th Edition</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=#00BFFF;fillColor=#00BFFF;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="526.99" y="85.24000000000001" width="197.78999999999996" height="37.930000000000064" as="geometry" /> </mxCell> <mxCell id="node3" value="<font style='font-size: 14px;' face='Helvetica-Outline' color='#000000'>PWB 1.0</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=#EEB422;fillColor=#EEB422;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="892.41" y="86.56999999999994" width="101.06000000000006" height="36.289999999999964" as="geometry" /> </mxCell> <mxCell id="node4" value="<font style='font-size: 14px;' face='Helvetica-Outline' color='#000000'>LSX</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=#EEC591;fillColor=#EEC591;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="793.91" y="175.35000000000002" width="78.72000000000003" height="35.639999999999986" as="geometry" /> </mxCell> <mxCell id="node5" value="<font style='font-size: 14px;' face='Helvetica-Outline' color='#000000'>1 BSD</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=#FFD700;fillColor=#FFD700;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="130.47" y="172.39" width="86.0" height="38.789999999999964" as="geometry" /> </mxCell> <mxCell id="node6" value="<font style='font-size: 14px;' face='Helvetica-Outline' color='#000000'>Mini Unix</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=#ADFF2F;fillColor=#ADFF2F;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="475.58" y="173.70000000000005" width="130.2" height="35.95999999999992" as="geometry" /> </mxCell> <mxCell id="node7" value="<font style='font-size: 14px;' face='Helvetica-Outline' color='#000000'>Wollongong</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=#8FBC8F;fillColor=#8FBC8F;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="631.38" y="172.5" width="135.70000000000005" height="33.690000000000055" as="geometry" /> </mxCell> <mxCell id="node8" value="<font style='font-size: 14px;' face='Helvetica-Outline' color='#000000'>Interdata</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=#1E90FF;fillColor=#1E90FF;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="300.75" y="166.3499999999999" width="134.26" height="41.38000000000011" as="geometry" /> </mxCell> <mxCell id="node9" value="<font style='font-size: 14px;' face='Helvetica-Outline' color='#000000'>PWB 1.2</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=#00FFFF;fillColor=#00FFFF;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="890.74" y="162.3800000000001" width="102.24000000000001" height="61.00999999999988" as="geometry" /> </mxCell> <mxCell id="node10" value="<font style='font-size: 14px;' face='Helvetica-Outline' color='#000000'>USG 1.0</font>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=#0000FF;fillColor=#0000FF;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> <mxGeometry x="1012.75" y="166.5999999999999" width="142.96000000000004" height="41.05000000000007" as="geometry" /> </mxCell>specs/directed/lion_share.xml (3)
6-145: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider grouping and commenting node definitions for better organization.
The node definitions are generally well-structured, but the readability and maintainability of the file could be improved by:
- Grouping similar nodes together (e.g., all rectangles, all ellipses).
- Adding comments to separate different groups of nodes or to explain the purpose of specific node types.
- Considering the use of a consistent naming convention for node IDs (e.g., prefixing with node type).
Example:
<!-- Rectangular nodes --> <mxCell id="rect_node1" ... /> <mxCell id="rect_node2" ... /> <!-- Elliptical nodes --> <mxCell id="ellipse_node1" ... /> <mxCell id="ellipse_node2" ... />These changes would make the file easier to navigate and maintain, especially as the diagram grows in complexity.
147-464: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider improving edge definitions for better readability and maintenance.
The edge definitions are functionally correct, but could be improved for better readability and easier maintenance:
- Add comments to group edges by their purpose or the nodes they connect.
- Consider using more descriptive edge IDs that reflect the connection they represent.
- If applicable, consider defining common edge styles separately and referencing them to reduce repetition.
Example:
<!-- Edges connecting top-level nodes --> <mxCell id="edge_node1_to_node2" style="edgeStyle=orthogonalEdgeStyle;rounded=0;" parent="1" source="node1" target="node2" edge="1"/> <!-- Edges connecting sub-nodes --> <mxCell id="edge_subnode1_to_subnode2" style="edgeStyle=entityRelationEdgeStyle;rounded=0;" parent="1" source="subnode1" target="subnode2" edge="1"/>These changes would make the structure of the graph more apparent and easier to modify in the future.
1-466: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Overall, the file is well-structured but could benefit from organizational improvements.
The
lion_share.xmlfile correctly defines a graph structure using the mxGraphModel format. The XML is well-formed, and the nodes and edges are properly defined. However, implementing the following suggestions would greatly improve the file's readability and maintainability:
- Group and comment node definitions based on their types or purposes.
- Use more descriptive IDs for both nodes and edges.
- Consider extracting common styles to reduce repetition.
- Add comments to explain the purpose of different sections or complex structures within the graph.
These improvements will make the file easier to understand, modify, and maintain as the graph structure evolves.
specs/directed/Linux_kernel_diagram.xml (2)
6-135: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
mxCell elements accurately represent kernel components with consistent styling.
The mxCell elements effectively represent various components of the Linux kernel, with consistent styling and formatting across similar components. The use of different colors and shapes helps distinguish between categories such as system, processing, and networking.
However, consider the following suggestions for improved organization and readability:
- Group related components together using mxCell groups or layers.
- Add comments or documentation within the XML to explain the purpose of different sections or components.
- Consider using more descriptive IDs for the mxCell elements to improve maintainability.
166-483: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Edge elements effectively represent relationships between kernel components.
The edge elements in the diagram successfully illustrate the connections between various kernel components. The consistent styling based on component categories enhances the diagram's readability and helps users understand the relationships at a glance.
Consider the following suggestions to further improve the representation of relationships:
- Add labels to edges to describe the nature of the relationship (e.g., "uses", "depends on", "communicates with").
- Include additional attributes in the edge elements to provide more detailed information about the relationships.
- Consider using different line styles (e.g., solid, dashed, dotted) to represent different types of relationships.
These enhancements could provide more detailed information about the interactions between kernel components without cluttering the visual representation.
specs/directed/world.xml (3)
6-149: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Node definitions are consistent, but naming convention could be clarified.
The node definitions using mxCell elements are consistently structured with appropriate attributes for id, value, style, and geometry. The uniform style across nodes ensures a consistent appearance in the graph visualization.
However, there are three different naming conventions used for node ids:
- "S" prefix (e.g., S8, S24)
- "T" prefix (e.g., T8, T24)
- Numeric ids (e.g., 9, 25)
Consider adding a comment or documentation to explain the significance of these different naming conventions. This would improve the clarity and maintainability of the graph model.
150-657: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Edge definitions are well-structured but could benefit from some improvements.
The edge definitions using mxCell elements are generally consistent and properly reference source and target nodes. The use of style attributes for appearance is appropriate.
However, there are a few points to consider:
Inconsistent edge paths: Some edges use curved paths (with "curved=1" attribute) while others are straight. This might represent different types of relationships or could be for visual clarity.
Non-sequential edge ids: The edge ids (e.g., edge1, edge2, ...) are not sequential, which might make it harder to track or reference specific edges.
Complex geometry: Some edges use additional geometry definitions with arrays of points, adding complexity to the layout.
Consider the following improvements:
- If the curved vs. straight edges have significance, add comments or documentation to explain their meaning.
- Consider using sequential ids for edges to improve readability and maintainability.
- Evaluate if the complex geometry definitions are necessary for all edges or if a simpler layout could achieve the same visual result.
1-659: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
The graph structure is complex and could benefit from additional documentation.
The XML file defines a complex graph structure with numerous nodes and connections, using a mix of different node types and connection styles. While the structure is consistent, there are several areas where improvements could enhance clarity and maintainability:
Purpose and Context: The meaning or purpose of the graph is not immediately clear from the XML alone.
Node and Edge Categorization: The use of different node naming conventions (S-prefix, T-prefix, and numeric) and varying edge styles (curved vs. straight) suggests different categories or types of relationships within the graph.
Layout Complexity: The layout is manually defined with specific coordinates for each node, which could make future modifications challenging.
Consider the following improvements:
- Add a comment block at the beginning of the file explaining the purpose and context of the graph.
- Include documentation that explains the significance of different node types and edge styles.
- Evaluate if a more programmatic or dynamic approach to layout could be used to simplify future modifications.
- If possible, consider breaking down the graph into smaller, more manageable subgraphs or components.
These changes would significantly improve the clarity and maintainability of the graph structure.
specs/undirected/grid.xml (3)
6-325: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Node definitions are consistent but could be optimized.
The node definitions from A0 to H7 are well-structured and consistent. However, consider the following suggestions for improvement:
- The style attribute is identical for all nodes. Consider defining a common style and referencing it to reduce redundancy.
- Node positions follow a grid pattern. You might want to consider generating these programmatically to ensure consistency and ease future modifications.
Example of a potential optimization for styles:
<mxStylesheet> <add as="defaultNodeStyle"> <add as="shape" value="ellipse"/> <add as="verticalAlign" value="middle"/> <add as="html" value="1"/> <add as="rounded" value="0"/> <add as="labelBackgroundColor" value="none"/> <add as="strokeColor" value="none"/> <add as="fillColor" value="none"/> <add as="strokeWidth" value="1"/> <add as="dashed" value="0"/> </mxStylesheet>Then, in each node definition:
<mxCell ... style="defaultNodeStyle" ...>This approach would make the XML more maintainable and less prone to inconsistencies.
326-1081: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Edge definitions are consistent but could be optimized.
The edge definitions correctly connect the nodes in the grid structure. However, similar to the node definitions, there's room for optimization:
The style attributes for edges are repeated. Consider defining common styles for different types of edges (e.g., solid, dashed) and referencing them to reduce redundancy.
The edge definitions follow a pattern based on the grid structure. You might want to consider generating these programmatically to ensure consistency and ease future modifications.
Example of a potential optimization for edge styles:
<mxStylesheet> <add as="defaultEdgeStyle"> <add as="endArrow" value="none"/> <add as="startArrow" value="none"/> <add as="startFill" value="0"/> <add as="endFill" value="0"/> <add as="strokeWidth" value="1"/> <add as="strokeColor" value="black"/> <add as="rounded" value="0"/> </add> <add as="dashedEdgeStyle" extend="defaultEdgeStyle"> <add as="dashed" value="1"/> <add as="strokeColor" value="dimgrey"/> </add> </mxStylesheet>Then, in each edge definition:
<mxCell ... style="defaultEdgeStyle" ...> <!-- or --> <mxCell ... style="dashedEdgeStyle" ...>This approach would make the XML more maintainable and less prone to inconsistencies.
1-1083: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Overall, the file is well-structured but has room for optimization.
The
specs/undirected/grid.xmlfile successfully defines a grid-like graph structure using the mxGraphModel format. The XML is well-formed, and the node and edge definitions are consistent throughout the file.Main points for improvement:
- Consider defining reusable styles for nodes and edges to reduce redundancy and improve maintainability.
- Explore the possibility of generating node and edge definitions programmatically, given the regular structure of the grid.
- If this file is meant to be a specification, consider adding comments or documentation to explain the purpose and structure of the graph.
These optimizations would make the file more maintainable and less prone to errors in future modifications.
specs/directed/sdh.xml (2)
6-229: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Node definitions are consistent and well-structured.
The nodes are defined using mxCell elements with appropriate attributes, including unique ids, styles, and geometric properties. The use of different colors (green, red, blue, pink, black, lightgrey) likely indicates different types or categories of nodes, which aids in visual distinction.
Note: Many nodes have empty value attributes. While this might be intentional, consider adding labels or descriptions to improve clarity if appropriate for this graph's use case.
1-1169: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Overall graph layout and design is well-structured and visually informative.
The graph demonstrates a complex directed structure with multiple layers and connections. The positioning of nodes creates a clear hierarchy or flow, and the use of various colors and styles effectively differentiates between different types of nodes and connections.
Suggestions for improvement:
- Consider adding labels or descriptions to nodes and edges to enhance clarity and make the graph more self-explanatory.
- If not already present, create accompanying documentation that explains the meaning of different colors, styles, and connections in the context of the system this graph represents.
- Evaluate if grouping certain nodes (using mxGraph's group feature) could further improve the graph's organization and readability.
These enhancements would make the graph more accessible to those who might not be intimately familiar with the system it represents.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 6
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- .github/workflows/lint.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/spec_test.yml (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 actionlint
.github/workflows/lint.yml
29-29: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2193:warning:1:54: The arguments to this comparison can never be equal. Make sure your syntax is correct
(shellcheck)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
.github/workflows/spec_test.yml (2)
1-6: LGTM: Workflow configuration looks good.The workflow name is descriptive, and the trigger on push events is appropriate for continuous integration. The read-only permission for contents is a good security practice.
23-23: LGTM: Graphviz installation step is correct.The Graphviz installation using Homebrew is appropriate for the macOS runner and the command is correct.
.github/workflows/lint.yml (2)
25-27: LGTM: Proper setup of dependencies and lintingThe installation of dependencies and linting tools is well-structured. Using Ruff for linting is an excellent choice due to its speed and comprehensive checks.
Line range hint
1-41: Overall improvements to the lint workflowThe changes to this workflow file are generally positive:
- Action versions have been updated.
- Dependency caching has been added, which should improve workflow speed.
- The linting and testing process has been refined.
The main point of improvement was in the version comparison for conditional type checking. With the suggested changes, this workflow should be more robust and efficient.
To ensure all necessary dependencies are correctly listed, please run the following command:
This will help identify any discrepancies between the workflow file and the requirements.txt file.
🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint
29-29: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2193:warning:1:54: The arguments to this comparison can never be equal. Make sure your syntax is correct
(shellcheck)
.github/workflows/spec_test.yml
Outdated
| lint: | ||
| runs-on: macos-12 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider renaming the job and reviewing the runner choice.
-
The job name "lint" might be misleading as it's running specification tests, not just linting. Consider renaming it to "spec-test" or "run-specs" for clarity.
-
The job is set to run on macOS-12. While this works, consider if this is the most appropriate runner for your needs. If the tests don't require macOS-specific features, using a Linux runner might be faster and more cost-effective.
.github/workflows/spec_test.yml
Outdated
| - uses: actions/checkout@v4 | ||
| - name: Set up Python | ||
| uses: actions/setup-python@v5 | ||
| id: cpython3 | ||
| with: | ||
| python-version: "3.10" | ||
| cache: pip | ||
| cache-dependency-path: requirements.txt | ||
| allow-prereleases: true | ||
| - run: pip install -r requirements.txt |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Python setup looks good, but consider pre-release setting.
The Python setup is well-configured with appropriate versions of actions and correct caching for pip dependencies. However, note that allowing pre-releases (line 19) might introduce instability in your CI pipeline. Unless you specifically need pre-release versions of packages, consider removing the allow-prereleases: true line for more stable builds.
| mkdir tmp_out | ||
| ./test_specs.sh test/ specs/ tmp_out/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Test execution steps look good, but consider adding error handling.
The creation of a temporary output directory and the execution of the test script are correct. However, consider the following improvements:
-
Add error handling to the script execution. For example:
- name: Run specs tests script run: | set -e mkdir tmp_out ./test_specs.sh test/ specs/ tmp_out/ || { echo "Spec tests failed"; exit 1; }
-
Consider capturing and uploading the test output as an artifact for easier debugging:
- uses: actions/upload-artifact@v3 if: always() with: name: spec-test-results path: tmp_out/
These changes will make the workflow more robust and easier to debug.
.github/workflows/spec_test.yml
Outdated
| name: Spec Test | ||
| on: push | ||
|
|
||
| permissions: | ||
| contents: read | ||
|
|
||
| jobs: | ||
| lint: | ||
| runs-on: macos-12 | ||
| steps: | ||
| - uses: actions/checkout@v4 | ||
| - name: Set up Python | ||
| uses: actions/setup-python@v5 | ||
| id: cpython3 | ||
| with: | ||
| python-version: "3.10" | ||
| cache: pip | ||
| cache-dependency-path: requirements.txt | ||
| allow-prereleases: true | ||
| - run: pip install -r requirements.txt | ||
| - name: Run specs tests script | ||
| run: | | ||
| brew install graphviz | ||
| mkdir tmp_out | ||
| ./test_specs.sh test/ specs/ tmp_out/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Overall, the workflow is well-structured but has room for improvement.
The GitHub Actions workflow for spec testing is generally well-configured. It sets up the necessary environment, installs dependencies, and runs the tests. However, there are a few areas that could be enhanced:
- The job name could be more descriptive of its actual function.
- The choice of runner (macOS) should be reviewed if it's not specifically required.
- The use of pre-release packages might introduce instability.
- Error handling and artifact collection could be added to improve debugging capabilities.
Addressing these points will make the workflow more robust, easier to maintain, and more informative when issues occur.
.github/workflows/lint.yml
Outdated
| - name: Run mypy if on 3.12, pytype otherwise | ||
| run: | | ||
| if [[ '${{ steps.cpython3.outputs.python-version }}' == *"3.11"* ]]; then | ||
| pip install pytype | ||
| pytype -j auto graphviz2drawio | ||
| else | ||
| echo "pytype does not support >= 3.12: https://github.com/google/pytype/issues/1475" | ||
| pip install mypy | ||
| mypy graphviz2drawio --ignore-missing-imports | ||
| fi | ||
| - uses: psf/black@stable | ||
| with: | ||
| options: "--check --verbose" | ||
| - run: pytest --cov |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Improve version comparison in conditional type checking
The conditional execution of mypy/pytype based on the Python version is a good approach. However, there's a potential issue with the version comparison:
The current comparison '${{ steps.cpython3.outputs.python-version }}' == *"3.11"* might not work as intended. The == operator doesn't support glob patterns in bash. Let's modify this to use string matching instead:
- if [[ '${{ steps.cpython3.outputs.python-version }}' == *"3.11"* ]]; then
+ if [[ '${{ steps.cpython3.outputs.python-version }}' == 3.11* ]]; thenThis change will correctly match any 3.11.x version.
Also, consider updating the comment to reflect the current Python version support:
- echo "pytype does not support >= 3.12: https://github.com/google/pytype/issues/1475"
+ echo "pytype does not support Python versions >= 3.12 (as of February 2024): https://github.com/google/pytype/issues/1475"This provides more context and a timestamp for future reference.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - name: Run mypy if on 3.12, pytype otherwise | |
| run: | | |
| if [[ '${{ steps.cpython3.outputs.python-version }}' == *"3.11"* ]]; then | |
| pip install pytype | |
| pytype -j auto graphviz2drawio | |
| else | |
| echo "pytype does not support >= 3.12: https://github.com/google/pytype/issues/1475" | |
| pip install mypy | |
| mypy graphviz2drawio --ignore-missing-imports | |
| fi | |
| - uses: psf/black@stable | |
| with: | |
| options: "--check --verbose" | |
| - run: pytest --cov | |
| - name: Run mypy if on 3.12, pytype otherwise | |
| run: | | |
| if [[ '${{ steps.cpython3.outputs.python-version }}' == 3.11* ]]; then | |
| pip install pytype | |
| pytype -j auto graphviz2drawio | |
| else | |
| echo "pytype does not support Python versions >= 3.12 (as of February 2024): https://github.com/google/pytype/issues/1475" | |
| pip install mypy | |
| mypy graphviz2drawio --ignore-missing-imports | |
| fi | |
| - uses: psf/black@stable | |
| with: | |
| options: "--check --verbose" | |
| - run: pytest --cov |
🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint
29-29: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2193:warning:1:54: The arguments to this comparison can never be equal. Make sure your syntax is correct
(shellcheck)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- test_specs.sh (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Shellcheck
test_specs.sh
[info] 25-25: Expansions inside ${..} need to be quoted separately, otherwise they match as patterns.
(SC2295)
[info] 59-59: Expansions inside ${..} need to be quoted separately, otherwise they match as patterns.
(SC2295)
[info] 83-83: Expansions inside ${..} need to be quoted separately, otherwise they match as patterns.
(SC2295)
test_specs.sh
Outdated
| local out_dir="$2" | ||
|
|
||
| find "$src_dir" -type f -name "*.gv.txt" -print0 | while IFS= read -r -d $'\0' file; do | ||
| rel_path="${file#$src_dir/}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Quote variables inside parameter expansion to prevent unintended pattern matching
In lines 25, 59, and 83, unquoted variables within parameter expansions can be interpreted as patterns, which may lead to unexpected behavior if the variable contains special characters like *, ?, or [.
Apply the following changes to fix the issue:
At line 25:
-rel_path="${file#$src_dir/}"
+rel_path="${file#"${src_dir}/"}"
At line 59:
-local rel_path="${file#$dir1/}"
+local rel_path="${file#"${dir1}/"}"
At line 83:
-local rel_path="${file#$dir2/}"
+local rel_path="${file#"${dir2}/"}"Also applies to: 59-59, 83-83
🧰 Tools
🪛 Shellcheck
[info] 25-25: Expansions inside ${..} need to be quoted separately, otherwise they match as patterns.
(SC2295)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 55
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (21)
- specs/directed/Linux_kernel_diagram.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/directed/Twelve_colors.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/directed/UML_Class_diagram.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/directed/cluster.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/directed/convnet.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/directed/crazy.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/directed/fsm.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/directed/git.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/directed/lion_share.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/directed/sdh.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/directed/subgraph.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/directed/subgraph_with_tables.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/directed/switch.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/gradient/angles.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/gradient/cluster.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/gradient/colors.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/gradient/linear_angle.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/gradient/radial_angle.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/gradient/table.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/undirected/ER.xml (1 hunks)
- specs/undirected/grid.xml (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (47)
specs/gradient/table.xml (3)
1-2: LGTM: XML declaration and root element are correctly defined.The XML declaration and the root
mxGraphModelelement are properly structured. The grid attribute is set to "0", which is valid for this graph model.
3-5: LGTM: Root mxCell elements are correctly structured.The root structure with two
mxCellelements is properly defined. The parent-child relationship between cells with id="0" and id="1" follows the standard mxGraph model structure.
1-13: Overall, the XML file is well-structured and serves its purpose effectively.The
specs/gradient/table.xmlfile is correctly formatted as an mxGraphModel, with appropriate cell definitions, styling, and geometry. The gradient effects and table-like structure are well-defined. While some minor formatting improvements were suggested for readability, the file is functionally sound and ready for use in the project.specs/directed/subgraph_with_tables.xml (2)
1-5: LGTM: XML structure and root elements are correctly defined.The XML declaration, root
mxGraphModelelement, and initialmxCellelements are properly structured. Thegridattribute is set to "0", which is consistent with the intended graph representation.
1-43: Overall, the file is well-structured and serves its purpose effectively.The
subgraph_with_tables.xmlfile correctly defines a graphical model using the mxGraphModel format. All necessary elements (clusters, nodes, edges) are present and well-defined, creating a comprehensive representation of the intended graph structure.Summary of suggestions for improvement:
- Add
aria-labelattributes to cluster cells for improved accessibility.- Standardize the geometry approach for all nodes (use either relative or absolute positioning consistently).
- Use a consistent approach for specifying source and target nodes in edge cells.
These minor adjustments will enhance the consistency and maintainability of the file without affecting its core functionality.
specs/directed/subgraph.xml (3)
1-5: LGTM: XML declaration and root structure are correct.The XML declaration and root structure follow the expected format for an mxGraphModel. The grid is disabled, which is appropriate for a specification file.
120-121: LGTM: Closing tags are correct.The closing tags properly terminate the XML structure, ensuring a well-formed document.
1-121: Overall assessment: Well-structured and appropriate for its purpose.This new XML file (
subgraph.xml) is a well-formed mxGraphModel representation of a directed graph depicting a network of services. It aligns with the PR objectives of enhancing specification files. The node and edge definitions are accurate and consistent, with appropriate use of styling and layout techniques.While no critical issues were found, consider the following minor suggestions for further improvement:
- Standardize font sizes across all nodes for visual consistency.
- Add comments for edges with complex routing to improve maintainability.
These suggestions aside, the file is approved and ready for integration.
specs/gradient/angles.xml (2)
1-5: LGTM: XML structure and root elements are correct.The XML declaration and the root structure of the mxGraphModel are properly defined. The use of mxCell elements with ids "0" and "1" follows the standard practice for mxGraph models.
1-73: Overall, the specification file is well-structured and aligns with the PR objectives.This new
angles.xmlfile successfully defines a graph model using themxGraphModelformat, which aligns with the PR objective of improving the generation and testing of specification files. The file effectively represents two clusters of angle variations (Linear and Radial) with appropriate styling and layout.Key strengths:
- Clear and logical structure of the mxGraph model.
- Proper definition of clusters and nodes with appropriate styling.
- Consistent use of radial gradients in the Radial Angle Variations cluster.
Areas for potential improvement:
- Standardize node sizes within each cluster for better visual consistency.
- Ensure consistent spacing in node labels.
- Consider using relative positioning for edge geometry for improved flexibility.
These minor improvements would enhance the overall quality and maintainability of the specification file, making it even more valuable for testing the conversion process as intended in this pull request.
specs/gradient/linear_angle.xml (4)
1-2: LGTM: XML declaration and root element are correctly defined.The XML declaration and mxGraphModel root element are properly set up. The UTF-8 encoding is specified, and the grid is disabled, which is appropriate for this type of diagram.
1-13: Overall: Well-structured mxGraphModel with minor considerations.The
linear_angle.xmlfile is well-formed and correctly defines an mxGraphModel with appropriate elements. The cluster and node definitions are properly structured with distinct visual styles. However, consider addressing the following points to enhance the diagram's clarity and usability:
- Verify the cluster's size and position in relation to other elements in the diagram.
- Review the numbering sequence in the node1 text elements to ensure it's intentional.
- Consider adjusting the node1 size to accommodate its text content better.
These adjustments could improve the overall readability and effectiveness of the diagram.
6-8: LGTM: Cluster definition is well-formed with appropriate styling.The cluster (id="clust1") is correctly defined with a blue fill color and a green gradient, which should create a visually distinct element. The geometry attributes are present, but consider verifying if the size (732.0 x 731.59) and position (12.0, 12.0) are optimal for your specific diagram layout.
To ensure the cluster's size and position are appropriate, you may want to review the overall diagram layout. Consider running the following command to check for any other elements that might overlap or be positioned relative to this cluster:
9-11: LGTM with questions: Node definition is complex but well-formed.The node (id="node1") is correctly defined with consistent text formatting for the numbered labels. However, there are two points to consider:
- The numbering sequence skips some numbers (09, 19, 29, etc.). Is this intentional or an oversight?
- The node's size (39.0 x 42.0) seems small compared to the amount of text it contains. This might lead to readability issues or text overflow.
To ensure the node's content is displayed correctly, you may want to verify the rendering of this element. Consider running the following command to check if there are any style overrides or additional properties that might affect the text display:
specs/gradient/radial_angle.xml (3)
1-2: LGTM: XML declaration and root element are correct.The XML declaration and root mxGraphModel element are properly defined. Setting grid to "0" is appropriate if no grid display is intended in the graphical representation.
3-5: LGTM: Root mxCell elements are correctly structured.The root structure with two mxCell elements is properly defined, following the standard mxGraph model structure.
1-13: Overall: Well-structured mxGraphModel specification with minor improvement suggestions.This XML file correctly defines an mxGraphModel structure for a graphical representation, likely used for testing purposes. The file includes all necessary elements with appropriate attributes and styling. While the current implementation is functional, consider the suggested improvements for enhanced clarity and maintainability:
- Add a label to the "clust1" cell for better identification.
- Optimize the content structure in the "node1" cell to reduce repetition and improve readability.
- If applicable, add comments or labels to explain the purpose of specific elements or patterns in the numbered items.
These changes could make the specification more self-explanatory and easier to maintain in the future.
specs/directed/cluster.xml (2)
1-2: XML structure looks goodThe XML declaration and root element are correctly defined. The document structure appears to be well-formed and follows the expected format for mxGraphModel.
1-125: Overall, the graph specification is well-structured and functionalThe XML file provides a clear and detailed representation of the directed graph model. The use of clusters, consistent node styling, and well-defined edges contributes to a comprehensible graph structure. The suggestions provided earlier are minor and aimed at enhancing maintainability and visual clarity. Great job on creating this comprehensive graph specification!
specs/gradient/cluster.xml (4)
1-5: LGTM: Root structure is well-formedThe XML declaration and root
mxGraphModelelement are correctly defined. The main root cell (id="0") and parent cell (id="1") are properly set up, which is essential for the mxGraph model structure.
12-41: LGTM: Node definitions are visually appealing and well-structuredThe node definitions (node1 to node10) demonstrate excellent use of visual differentiation:
- Consistent use of gradients enhances the overall aesthetic.
- Appropriate use of different shapes (ellipses, rhombus, fixed aspect ratio) for different node types.
- Clear and consistent geometry definitions for each node.
This approach will result in a visually appealing and easy-to-understand diagram.
42-123: LGTM: Edge definitions are well-defined and visually diverseThe edge definitions (edge1 to edge13) are consistently styled and well-structured:
- Consistent use of black, solid lines for all edges.
- Appropriate mix of straight (rounded=0) and curved edges for visual interest.
- Precise definition of connections using exitX/Y and entryX/Y attributes.
- Proper use of intermediate points for complex paths (e.g., edge8).
This approach ensures accurate representation of relationships between nodes and enhances the overall clarity of the diagram.
1-125: Overall: Excellent diagram definition with attention to detailThis mxGraph XML file demonstrates high-quality diagram definition:
- Well-structured XML following mxGraph conventions.
- Consistent and visually appealing use of gradients, shapes, and colors.
- Precise positioning and connections between elements.
- Clear representation of two processes with interconnected nodes.
The resulting diagram should be both informative and visually engaging, effectively representing the intended workflow or system structure.
specs/directed/git.xml (1)
1-5: LGTM: XML structure and root elements are correctly defined.The XML declaration,
mxGraphModelroot element, and initialmxCellelements are properly structured. Thegridattribute set to "0" is noted.specs/undirected/ER.xml (1)
1-5: LGTM: XML structure and root element are correctly defined.The XML declaration, mxGraphModel root element, and initial mxCell elements are properly set up for an ER diagram representation.
specs/directed/convnet.xml (3)
1-5: XML structure is well-formed and follows the expected format.The XML declaration and root element are correctly defined. The initial
<mxCell>elements (id "0" and "1") are properly set up, which is typical for mxGraph models.
1-149: Overall, the ConvNet XML representation is well-structured but requires verification.The
specs/directed/convnet.xmlfile provides a comprehensive and well-structured representation of a Convolutional Neural Network using the mxGraph model. The key strengths of this representation include:
- Proper XML structure and formatting
- Clear definition of various ConvNet components (input nodes, convolutional layers, pooling layers, dropout layers)
- Use of LaTeX notation for precise mathematical representations
To ensure the accuracy and completeness of this ConvNet representation, consider the following recommendations:
- Verify the ConvNet architecture, including the sequence of layers and presence of all necessary components
- Check the consistency and correctness of mathematical notations and operations
- Consider adding activation functions if they are intended to be part of the model
By addressing these points, you can enhance the reliability and usefulness of this XML representation for your ConvNet model.
6-147: Mathematical representations use LaTeX notation, verify consistency and correctness.The XML file uses LaTeX-style notation for mathematical expressions, which is appropriate for representing complex mathematical concepts in the graph. This approach enhances readability and precision in describing the ConvNet operations.
To ensure the quality and consistency of these mathematical representations:
- Verify that all mathematical symbols are correctly formatted (e.g., subscripts, superscripts).
- Ensure consistency in notation throughout the graph (e.g., use of
$$x_t$$ vs$$x_{t}$$ ).- Check that the mathematical operations on edges correctly represent the intended ConvNet operations.
To assist in verifying the mathematical representations, you can run the following script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the consistency and correctness of mathematical representations # Extract and list all unique mathematical expressions echo "Unique mathematical expressions used:" grep -oP '(?<=\$\$).*(?=\$\$)' specs/directed/convnet.xml | sort | uniq # Check for potential inconsistencies in subscript notation echo -e "\nChecking for potential inconsistencies in subscript notation:" grep -oP '(?<=\$\$).*(?=\$\$)' specs/directed/convnet.xml | grep -E "[a-zA-Z]_[a-zA-Z0-9]" | sort | uniq -c # List all edge labels to verify correctness of operations echo -e "\nEdge labels (operations between nodes):" grep "label_edge" specs/directed/convnet.xml | grep -oP '(?<=\$\$).*(?=\$\$)'This script will help you identify all unique mathematical expressions, check for potential inconsistencies in subscript notation, and list all edge labels for easy verification of the operations between nodes.
specs/gradient/colors.xml (3)
1-5: LGTM: XML structure and root elements are correct.The XML declaration and root structure for the mxGraphModel are properly defined. The grid attribute is set to "0", which is appropriate for this type of diagram.
6-17: LGTM: Cluster definitions are well-structured and consistent.The four cluster definitions (X11 Colors, SVG Colors, Brewer - accent, and Brewer - blues) are consistently styled and positioned. This organization provides a clear separation of different color schemes, which is beneficial for testing and visualization purposes.
1-109: LGTM: Comprehensive gradient testing specification. Minor enhancements suggested.This XML specification for gradient color testing is well-structured and comprehensive. It effectively covers various shapes, colors, and gradient styles across different color schemes (X11, SVG, Brewer), providing a robust test case for gradient rendering implementations.
Key strengths:
- Clear organization into color scheme clusters
- Diverse set of shapes and gradient styles
- Consistent styling within clusters
Suggested minor enhancements:
- Consider sequential numbering of nodes for improved readability
- Explore adding more edge connections for more comprehensive interaction testing
Overall, this specification serves its purpose well and is approved for use in testing gradient implementations.
specs/directed/UML_Class_diagram.xml (2)
1-5: LGTM: Overall structure is correctThe XML structure follows the expected format for an mxGraphModel file, with proper declarations and root elements.
1-138: LGTM: UML Class diagram is well-defined with minor improvement suggestionsThe UML Class diagram is correctly defined using the mxGraphModel format. All necessary elements (classes, interfaces, subsystems, and relationships) are present and properly structured. The suggested improvements for node visibility and edge organization will enhance the diagram's clarity and the code's maintainability, but they are not critical issues.
Overall, this file successfully represents the intended UML Class diagram and is ready for use with minor enhancements.
specs/directed/Twelve_colors.xml (2)
1-5: LGTM: XML structure and root elements are correct.The XML declaration and root element structure follow mxGraph conventions, providing a solid foundation for the graph model.
1-172: Overall: Well-structured mxGraph model with minor improvement suggestions.This new XML file successfully defines a graphical model representing relationships between 12 colors. The structure adheres to mxGraph conventions, and the node and edge definitions accurately represent the intended color connections.
Key points:
- The XML declaration and root element structure are correct.
- Node definitions for 12 colors are consistent and well-defined.
- Edge definitions correctly represent the relationships between color nodes.
While the file is functional as-is, consider the suggested formatting improvements for the
styleattributes in both node and edge definitions. These changes would enhance readability and maintainability without affecting functionality.Great job on creating this comprehensive color relationship model!
specs/directed/fsm.xml (3)
1-5: XML structure and root elements look good.The XML declaration, root element, and initial mxCell elements are correctly structured and follow the expected format for an mxGraphModel representation of a finite state machine.
184-185: Closing tags are correct.The XML structure is properly closed with the appropriate ending tags for
rootandmxGraphModelelements.
1-185: Overall, the FSM representation is well-structured and effective.This new XML file successfully defines a finite state machine using the mxGraphModel format. The node and edge definitions are consistent, visually effective, and follow best practices for graph representation. While the file is already in good shape, consider the suggested improvements for style management and element grouping to further enhance maintainability and readability.
specs/directed/lion_share.xml (1)
1-5: LGTM: Proper XML structure and graph initialization.The XML declaration, root element, and initial mxCell elements are correctly defined, following the mxGraphModel format standards.
specs/directed/crazy.xml (1)
1-5: LGTM: XML declaration and root structure are well-formed.The XML declaration, mxGraphModel root element, and initial mxCell elements are correctly defined and follow the expected structure for an mxGraph model.
specs/directed/Linux_kernel_diagram.xml (2)
1-2: XML declaration and root element look good.The XML declaration and root element are correctly defined. The
gridattribute is set to "0", which might affect the layout of the diagram. Ensure this is the intended behavior for your diagram layout.
3-5: Root cells are correctly defined.The two root cells are properly set up with appropriate
idattributes. The parent-child relationship is established correctly.specs/directed/switch.xml (2)
1-2: XML declaration and root element look good.The XML declaration and mxGraphModel root element are correctly defined. The use of the grid attribute is appropriate for this type of diagram.
3-5: Root cells are correctly defined.The root cells (id 0 and 1) are properly set up, with the correct parent-child relationship established. This is a standard practice in mxGraph models.
specs/undirected/grid.xml (2)
1-2: XML declaration and root element look good.The XML declaration and root element are correctly formatted and include necessary attributes.
3-5: Root cells are correctly defined.The root cells (id 0 and 1) are properly set up, with cell 1 being a child of cell 0, which is a standard practice in mxGraph models.
specs/directed/sdh.xml (1)
3-5: LGTM! Correct graph structure initialization.The graph structure is correctly initialized with the standard mxCell elements (id="0" and id="1"). This follows the expected pattern for mxGraph models.
| <mxCell id="clust1" value="" style="verticalAlign=top;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=blue;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;gradientColor=green;gradientDirection=west;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="12.0" y="12.0" width="500.0" height="508.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Cluster mxCell element is well-defined. Consider improving readability.
The mxCell element with id="clust1" is correctly structured with appropriate style attributes and geometry settings. The gradient effect from blue to green is properly specified.
To improve readability, consider breaking the long style attribute into multiple lines. For example:
<mxCell id="clust1" value=""
style="verticalAlign=top;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;
strokeColor=black;fillColor=blue;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;
gradientColor=green;gradientDirection=west;"
parent="1" vertex="1">
<mxGeometry x="12.0" y="12.0" width="500.0" height="508.0" as="geometry" />
</mxCell>This change is optional but can make the XML more maintainable.
| <mxCell id="node1" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>00</font><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>01</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>02</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>03</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>10</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>11</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>12</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>13</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>20</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>22</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>30</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>31</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>32</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>33</font></div>" style="rhombus;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=gold;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;gradientColor=brown;gradientDirection=radial;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="20.0" y="20.0" width="484.0" height="492.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Node mxCell element is well-structured. Consider consistent formatting.
The mxCell element with id="node1" is correctly defined with appropriate style attributes, geometry settings, and formatted content. The gradient effect from gold to brown with radial direction is properly specified.
For consistency with the previous cell, consider breaking the long style attribute into multiple lines. Additionally, you might want to consider using consistent quotation marks throughout the file. For example:
<mxCell id="node1"
value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>00</font><hr size='1'/>
<div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>01</font></div><hr size='1'/>
<!-- ... other content ... -->"
style="rhombus;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;
strokeColor=black;fillColor=gold;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;
gradientColor=brown;gradientDirection=radial;"
parent="1" vertex="1">
<mxGeometry x="20.0" y="20.0" width="484.0" height="492.0" as="geometry" />
</mxCell>These changes are optional but can improve readability and maintainability.
| <mxCell id="edge1" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node1" target="node2"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="47.0" y="168.70999999999998" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="47.0" y="195.32999999999998" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge2" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=1.0000;exitY=1.0000;entryX=1.0000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node3" target="node4"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="125.0" y="168.99" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="125.0" y="193.84" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Edge cells are correctly defined with appropriate styling.
The edge cells (edge1 and edge2) are well-structured, connecting the appropriate nodes with specific styling. The arrow types, colors, and other attributes are correctly specified.
For consistency and improved readability, consider using the same approach for specifying source and target nodes. Currently, edge1 uses the source and target attributes, while edge2 uses exitX, exitY, entryX, and entryY. Standardizing this would improve maintainability. For example:
- <mxCell id="edge2" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=1.0000;exitY=1.0000;entryX=1.0000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node3" target="node4">
+ <mxCell id="edge2" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node3" target="node4">
<mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1">
<mxPoint x="125.0" y="168.99" as="sourcePoint" />
<mxPoint x="125.0" y="193.84" as="targetPoint" />
</mxGeometry>
</mxCell>📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| <mxCell id="edge1" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node1" target="node2"> | |
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | |
| <mxPoint x="47.0" y="168.70999999999998" as="sourcePoint" /> | |
| <mxPoint x="47.0" y="195.32999999999998" as="targetPoint" /> | |
| </mxGeometry> | |
| </mxCell> | |
| <mxCell id="edge2" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=1.0000;exitY=1.0000;entryX=1.0000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node3" target="node4"> | |
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | |
| <mxPoint x="125.0" y="168.99" as="sourcePoint" /> | |
| <mxPoint x="125.0" y="193.84" as="targetPoint" /> | |
| </mxGeometry> | |
| </mxCell> | |
| <mxCell id="edge1" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node1" target="node2"> | |
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | |
| <mxPoint x="47.0" y="168.70999999999998" as="sourcePoint" /> | |
| <mxPoint x="47.0" y="195.32999999999998" as="targetPoint" /> | |
| </mxGeometry> | |
| </mxCell> | |
| <mxCell id="edge2" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=black;strokeColor=black;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node3" target="node4"> | |
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | |
| <mxPoint x="125.0" y="168.99" as="sourcePoint" /> | |
| <mxPoint x="125.0" y="193.84" as="targetPoint" /> | |
| </mxGeometry> | |
| </mxCell> |
| <mxCell id="clust1" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>{x|y|z}</font>" style="ellipse;verticalAlign=top;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=none;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="47.0" y="65.05000000000001" as="offset" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="clust2" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>xx</font><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>ww</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>yy</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>zz</font></div>" style="verticalAlign=top;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="103.0" y="16.0" width="19.0" height="22.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Cluster cells are well-defined with appropriate styling.
The clust1 and clust2 cells are correctly structured with proper styling and positioning. The labels are formatted correctly, including the table-like structure in clust2.
Consider adding aria-label attributes to these cells to improve accessibility for screen readers. For example:
- <mxCell id="clust1" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>{x|y|z}</font>" style="ellipse;verticalAlign=top;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=none;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1">
+ <mxCell id="clust1" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>{x|y|z}</font>" style="ellipse;verticalAlign=top;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=none;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1" aria-label="Cluster 1: x, y, z">📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| <mxCell id="clust1" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>{x|y|z}</font>" style="ellipse;verticalAlign=top;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=none;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | |
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | |
| <mxPoint x="47.0" y="65.05000000000001" as="offset" /> | |
| </mxGeometry> | |
| </mxCell> | |
| <mxCell id="clust2" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>xx</font><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>ww</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>yy</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>zz</font></div>" style="verticalAlign=top;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | |
| <mxGeometry x="103.0" y="16.0" width="19.0" height="22.0" as="geometry" /> | |
| </mxCell> | |
| <mxCell id="clust1" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>{x|y|z}</font>" style="ellipse;verticalAlign=top;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=none;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1" aria-label="Cluster 1: x, y, z"> | |
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | |
| <mxPoint x="47.0" y="65.05000000000001" as="offset" /> | |
| </mxGeometry> | |
| </mxCell> | |
| <mxCell id="clust2" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>xx</font><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>ww</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>yy</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>zz</font></div>" style="verticalAlign=top;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | |
| <mxGeometry x="103.0" y="16.0" width="19.0" height="22.0" as="geometry" /> | |
| </mxCell> |
| <mxCell id="node1" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>a</font><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>b</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>c</font></div>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=none;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="46.88" y="98.05000000000001" as="offset" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node2" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>d</font><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>e</font></div>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=none;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="46.88" y="210.3" as="offset" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node3" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>aa</font><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>gg</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>bb</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>cc</font></div>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="106.0" y="98.5" width="19.0" height="22.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node4" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>dd</font><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>hh</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>ee</font></div>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="106.0" y="209.5" width="19.0" height="22.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Node cells are well-defined with varied styling.
The node cells (node1, node2, node3, and node4) are correctly structured with appropriate attributes, labels, and positioning. The use of table-like structures in the labels is consistent and well-formatted.
For consistency, consider using the same geometry approach for all nodes. Currently, node1 and node2 use relative positioning, while node3 and node4 use absolute positioning. Standardizing this would improve maintainability. For example:
- <mxCell id="node3" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>aa</font><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>gg</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>bb</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>cc</font></div>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1">
- <mxGeometry x="106.0" y="98.5" width="19.0" height="22.0" as="geometry" />
+ <mxCell id="node3" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>aa</font><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>gg</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>bb</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>cc</font></div>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1">
+ <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1">
+ <mxPoint x="106.0" y="98.5" as="offset" />
+ </mxGeometry>
</mxCell>📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| <mxCell id="node1" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>a</font><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>b</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>c</font></div>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=none;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | |
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | |
| <mxPoint x="46.88" y="98.05000000000001" as="offset" /> | |
| </mxGeometry> | |
| </mxCell> | |
| <mxCell id="node2" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>d</font><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>e</font></div>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=none;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | |
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | |
| <mxPoint x="46.88" y="210.3" as="offset" /> | |
| </mxGeometry> | |
| </mxCell> | |
| <mxCell id="node3" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>aa</font><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>gg</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>bb</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>cc</font></div>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | |
| <mxGeometry x="106.0" y="98.5" width="19.0" height="22.0" as="geometry" /> | |
| </mxCell> | |
| <mxCell id="node4" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>dd</font><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>hh</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>ee</font></div>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | |
| <mxGeometry x="106.0" y="209.5" width="19.0" height="22.0" as="geometry" /> | |
| </mxCell> | |
| <mxCell id="node1" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>a</font><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>b</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>c</font></div>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=none;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | |
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | |
| <mxPoint x="46.88" y="98.05000000000001" as="offset" /> | |
| </mxGeometry> | |
| </mxCell> | |
| <mxCell id="node2" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>d</font><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>e</font></div>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=none;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | |
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | |
| <mxPoint x="46.88" y="210.3" as="offset" /> | |
| </mxGeometry> | |
| </mxCell> | |
| <mxCell id="node3" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>aa</font><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>gg</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>bb</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>cc</font></div>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | |
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | |
| <mxPoint x="106.0" y="98.5" as="offset" /> | |
| </mxGeometry> | |
| </mxCell> | |
| <mxCell id="node4" value="<font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>dd</font><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>hh</font></div><hr size='1'/><div><font style='font-size: 14.0px;' face='Times,serif' color='#000000'>ee</font></div>" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=none;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | |
| <mxGeometry x="106.0" y="209.5" width="19.0" height="22.0" as="geometry" /> | |
| </mxCell> |
specs/undirected/grid.xml
Outdated
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge98" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=dimgrey;strokeColor=dimgrey;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node54" target="node57"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="264.31" y="1358.95" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="292.81" y="1395.21" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge99" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=dimgrey;strokeColor=dimgrey;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node55" target="node56"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="344.0" y="422.8499999999999" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="344.0" y="531.1800000000001" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge100" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=dimgrey;strokeColor=dimgrey;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node55" target="node58"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="357.31" y="422.95000000000005" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="385.81" y="459.21000000000004" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge101" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=dimgrey;strokeColor=dimgrey;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node56" target="node24"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="357.31" y="566.95" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="385.81" y="603.21" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge102" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=dimgrey;strokeColor=dimgrey;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node56" target="node26"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="344.0" y="566.85" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="344.0" y="675.18" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge109" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=dimgrey;strokeColor=dimgrey;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node57" target="node21"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="319.31" y="1430.95" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="347.81" y="1467.21" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge110" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=dimgrey;strokeColor=dimgrey;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node58" target="node23"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="412.31" y="494.95000000000005" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="440.81" y="531.21" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge111" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=dimgrey;strokeColor=dimgrey;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node58" target="node24"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="399.0" y="494.8499999999999" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="399.0" y="603.18" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge114" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=dimgrey;strokeColor=dimgrey;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node59" target="node60"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="399.0" y="926.85" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="399.0" y="1035.1799999999998" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge115" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=dimgrey;strokeColor=dimgrey;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node59" target="node62"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="412.31" y="926.95" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="440.81" y="963.21" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge116" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=dimgrey;strokeColor=dimgrey;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node60" target="node19"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="399.0" y="1070.85" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="399.0" y="1179.18" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge117" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=dimgrey;strokeColor=dimgrey;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node60" target="node63"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="412.31" y="1070.95" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="440.81" y="1107.21" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge122" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=dimgrey;strokeColor=dimgrey;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node61" target="node62"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="454.0" y="854.85" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="454.0" y="963.18" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge123" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=dimgrey;strokeColor=dimgrey;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node62" target="node63"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="454.0" y="998.85" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="454.0" y="1107.18" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge124" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=dimgrey;strokeColor=dimgrey;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node63" target="node64"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="454.0" y="1142.85" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="454.0" y="1251.18" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge125" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=dimgrey;strokeColor=dimgrey;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node64" target="node22"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="454.0" y="1286.85" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="454.0" y="1395.18" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| </root> | ||
| </mxGraphModel> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Overall, the grid.xml file is well-structured and functional.
The file successfully defines a grid-like graph structure using the mxGraphModel format. Nodes and edges are consistently defined with appropriate attributes and styling.
To further improve the file:
- Consider using mxGraph's stylesheet feature to extract common style properties for both nodes and edges. This would significantly reduce repetition and improve maintainability.
- Ensure that the grid structure defined in this file aligns with the intended graph representation in your application.
These suggestions aim to enhance code quality and maintainability without altering the core functionality of the graph definition.
As you continue to develop graph-based features, consider implementing a graph generation utility that can programmatically create these XML structures. This approach could offer several benefits:
- Easier creation and modification of complex graph structures
- Reduced chance of errors in manual XML editing
- Ability to generate graphs dynamically based on input parameters
Such a utility could be particularly useful if you need to create multiple variations of this grid structure or other graph types in the future.
| <?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?> | ||
| <mxGraphModel grid="0"> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM! Consider specifying grid size if needed.
The XML declaration and root element are correctly structured. The mxGraphModel element is appropriate for this graph format.
You might want to consider setting a specific grid size (e.g., grid="1") if you need a visible grid for better alignment and positioning of elements.
| <mxGeometry x="184.26" y="752.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="27.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node40" value="" style="triangle;direction=south;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=red;fillColor=red;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="809.26" y="752.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="27.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node41" value="" style="triangle;direction=south;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=red;fillColor=red;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="1034.26" y="752.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="27.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node42" value="" style="triangle;direction=south;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=red;fillColor=red;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="1296.26" y="752.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="27.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node43" value="" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=green;fillColor=green;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="184.26" y="835.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node46" value="" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=green;fillColor=green;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="790.26" y="835.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node47" value="" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=green;fillColor=green;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="1034.26" y="835.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node48" value="" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=green;fillColor=green;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="1296.26" y="835.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node49" value="" style="triangle;direction=south;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=red;fillColor=red;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="184.26" y="936.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="27.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node44" value="" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=green;fillColor=green;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="523.26" y="835.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node45" value="" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=green;fillColor=green;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="605.26" y="835.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node50" value="" style="triangle;direction=south;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=red;fillColor=red;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="504.26" y="936.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="27.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node51" value="" style="triangle;direction=south;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=red;fillColor=red;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="605.26" y="936.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="27.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node52" value="" style="triangle;direction=south;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=red;fillColor=red;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="781.26" y="936.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="27.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node53" value="" style="triangle;direction=south;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=red;fillColor=red;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="1034.26" y="936.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="27.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node54" value="" style="triangle;direction=south;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=red;fillColor=red;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="1296.26" y="936.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="27.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node55" value="" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=green;fillColor=green;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="184.26" y="1019.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node58" value="" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=green;fillColor=green;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="476.26" y="1019.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node73" value="" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=lightgrey;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="550.26" y="1208.67" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node59" value="" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=green;fillColor=green;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="624.26" y="1019.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node60" value="" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=green;fillColor=green;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="772.26" y="1019.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node61" value="" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=green;fillColor=green;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="1034.26" y="1019.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node62" value="" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=green;fillColor=green;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="1296.26" y="1019.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node63" value="" style="triangle;direction=south;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=red;fillColor=red;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="184.26" y="1120.67" width="54.0" height="27.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node56" value="" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=green;fillColor=green;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="332.26" y="1019.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node57" value="" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=green;fillColor=green;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="404.26" y="1019.6700000000001" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node64" value="" style="triangle;direction=south;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=red;fillColor=red;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="332.26" y="1120.67" width="54.0" height="27.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node65" value="" style="triangle;direction=south;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=red;fillColor=red;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="404.26" y="1120.67" width="54.0" height="27.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node66" value="" style="triangle;direction=south;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=red;fillColor=red;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="476.26" y="1120.67" width="54.0" height="27.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node67" value="" style="triangle;direction=south;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=red;fillColor=red;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="624.26" y="1120.67" width="54.0" height="27.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node68" value="" style="triangle;direction=south;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=red;fillColor=red;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="772.26" y="1120.67" width="54.0" height="27.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node69" value="" style="triangle;direction=south;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=red;fillColor=red;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="1034.26" y="1120.67" width="54.0" height="27.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node70" value="" style="triangle;direction=south;verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=red;fillColor=red;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="1296.26" y="1120.67" width="54.0" height="27.0" as="geometry" /> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="node72" value="" style="verticalAlign=middle;html=1;rounded=0;labelBackgroundColor=none;strokeColor=black;fillColor=lightgrey;strokeWidth=1;dashed=0;" parent="1" vertex="1"> | ||
| <mxGeometry x="368.26" y="1208.67" width="54.0" height="36.0" as="geometry" /> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM! Consider documenting shape and color semantics.
The node definitions are well-structured with a variety of shapes (rectangles, triangles, hexagons, rhombuses) and colors (green, red, blue, pink, light grey). Each node has a unique id and appropriate geometry attributes.
To improve maintainability and understanding of the graph, consider adding documentation (either in comments or in a separate file) that explains the semantic meaning of each shape and color combination used in the graph.
| <mxPoint x="503.26" y="1056.02" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="503.26" y="1120.54" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge27" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5000;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.5000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node59" target="node67"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="651.26" y="1056.02" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="651.26" y="1120.54" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge28" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5000;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.5000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node60" target="node68"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="799.26" y="1056.02" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="799.26" y="1120.54" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge29" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5000;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.5000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node61" target="node69"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="1061.26" y="1056.02" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="1061.26" y="1120.54" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge30" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5000;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.5000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node62" target="node70"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="1323.26" y="1056.02" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="1323.26" y="1120.54" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge39" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=1.0000;exitY=0.3333;entryX=0.0000;entryY=0.3333;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node63" target="node64"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="229.76" y="1129.67" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="340.79" y="1129.67" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge75" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.3585;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.9356;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node63" target="node71"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="203.62" y="1140.48" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="160.78" y="1195.47" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge76" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5898;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.2750;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node64" target="node72"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="364.11" y="1143.48" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="383.11" y="1193.6200000000001" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge40" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=1.0000;exitY=0.3333;entryX=0.0000;entryY=0.3333;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node65" target="node66"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="449.82" y="1129.67" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="484.89" y="1129.67" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge77" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.4100;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.7248;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node65" target="node72"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="426.4" y="1143.48" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="407.4" y="1193.6200000000001" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge78" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.6415;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.0643;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node66" target="node73"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="510.9" y="1140.48" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="553.73" y="1195.47" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge41" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=1.0000;exitY=0.3333;entryX=0.0000;entryY=0.3333;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node67" target="node68"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="669.76" y="1129.67" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="780.79" y="1129.67" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge79" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.3585;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.9356;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node67" target="node73"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="643.62" y="1140.48" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="600.78" y="1195.47" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge80" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.6822;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.0000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node68" target="node74"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="809.1" y="1137.8100000000002" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="891.47" y="1197.54" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge42" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=1.0000;exitY=0.3333;entryX=0.0000;entryY=0.3333;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node69" target="node70"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="1079.94" y="1129.67" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="1304.72" y="1129.67" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge81" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.3176;exitY=1.0000;entryX=1.0000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node69" target="node74"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="1051.41" y="1137.8100000000002" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="969.05" y="1197.54" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge82" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5717;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.3298;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node70" target="node75"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="1327.13" y="1144.28" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="1341.07" y="1193.3400000000001" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM! Consider documenting edge style semantics.
The edge definitions are well-structured, using mxCell elements with correct source and target attributes. The variety of edge styles (solid, dashed, different arrow types) and custom styling (strokeColor, strokeWidth) adds visual distinction to different types of connections.
To enhance the graph's clarity and maintainability, consider adding documentation that explains the semantic meaning of each edge style (e.g., what a dashed line represents vs. a solid line, or what different arrow types signify in the context of your system).
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge27" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5000;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.5000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node59" target="node67"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="651.26" y="1056.02" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="651.26" y="1120.54" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge28" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5000;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.5000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node60" target="node68"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="799.26" y="1056.02" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="799.26" y="1120.54" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge29" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5000;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.5000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node61" target="node69"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="1061.26" y="1056.02" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="1061.26" y="1120.54" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge30" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5000;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.5000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node62" target="node70"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="1323.26" y="1056.02" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="1323.26" y="1120.54" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge39" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=1.0000;exitY=0.3333;entryX=0.0000;entryY=0.3333;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node63" target="node64"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="229.76" y="1129.67" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="340.79" y="1129.67" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge75" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.3585;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.9356;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node63" target="node71"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="203.62" y="1140.48" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="160.78" y="1195.47" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge76" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5898;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.2750;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node64" target="node72"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="364.11" y="1143.48" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="383.11" y="1193.6200000000001" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge40" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=1.0000;exitY=0.3333;entryX=0.0000;entryY=0.3333;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node65" target="node66"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="449.82" y="1129.67" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="484.89" y="1129.67" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge77" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.4100;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.7248;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node65" target="node72"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="426.4" y="1143.48" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="407.4" y="1193.6200000000001" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge78" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.6415;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.0643;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node66" target="node73"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="510.9" y="1140.48" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="553.73" y="1195.47" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge41" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=1.0000;exitY=0.3333;entryX=0.0000;entryY=0.3333;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node67" target="node68"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="669.76" y="1129.67" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="780.79" y="1129.67" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge79" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.3585;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.9356;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node67" target="node73"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="643.62" y="1140.48" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="600.78" y="1195.47" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge80" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.6822;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.0000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node68" target="node74"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="809.1" y="1137.8100000000002" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="891.47" y="1197.54" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge42" style="html=1;endArrow=none;dashed=1;endFill=0;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=1.0000;exitY=0.3333;entryX=0.0000;entryY=0.3333;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node69" target="node70"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="1079.94" y="1129.67" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="1304.72" y="1129.67" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge81" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.3176;exitY=1.0000;entryX=1.0000;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node69" target="node74"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="1051.41" y="1137.8100000000002" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="969.05" y="1197.54" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| <mxCell id="edge82" style="html=1;endArrow=block;dashed=0;endFill=1;startArrow=none;startFill=0;fillColor=white;strokeColor=white;strokeWidth=1;rounded=0;exitX=0.5717;exitY=1.0000;entryX=0.3298;entryY=0.0000;" parent="1" edge="1" source="node70" target="node75"> | ||
| <mxGeometry as="geometry" relative="1"> | ||
| <mxPoint x="1327.13" y="1144.28" as="sourcePoint" /> | ||
| <mxPoint x="1341.07" y="1193.3400000000001" as="targetPoint" /> | ||
| </mxGeometry> | ||
| </mxCell> | ||
| </root> | ||
| </mxGraphModel> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM! Well-structured layout and consistent styling.
The positioning of nodes and edges is precise, creating a carefully designed layout. The use of curved paths for some edges enhances readability. The styling is consistent within node and edge types, aiding visual comprehension.
For future updates or when dealing with larger graphs, consider using automated graph layout algorithms or tools. This can help maintain an optimal layout as the graph grows or changes, potentially saving time and ensuring consistency.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Excellent graph representation. Consider adding accompanying documentation.
This mxGraphModel XML file is well-structured and represents a complex directed graph with various node types and connections. The layout is carefully designed, and the styling is consistent, which aids in visual comprehension.
To further enhance the usability and maintainability of this graph:
-
Create accompanying documentation that explains:
- The overall purpose and context of this graph
- The meaning of each node shape and color combination
- The significance of different edge styles (e.g., dashed vs. solid, arrow types)
- Any specific patterns or structures within the graph that have particular importance
-
Consider adding this documentation as XML comments within the file or as a separate markdown document in the same directory.
Would you like assistance in creating a template for this documentation?
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- .github/workflows/lint.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/spec_test.yml (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 actionlint
.github/workflows/lint.yml
29-29: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2193:warning:1:54: The arguments to this comparison can never be equal. Make sure your syntax is correct
(shellcheck)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
.github/workflows/spec_test.yml (4)
1-6: Workflow configuration looks good!The workflow name "Spec Test" is clear and descriptive, addressing the previous suggestion. The trigger on push events and the read-only permissions for contents are appropriate for this testing workflow.
11-18: Python setup is well-configuredThe Python environment setup is correctly implemented:
- Using the latest versions of checkout and setup-python actions.
- Python 3.12 is specified.
- Pip dependency caching is properly configured.
This addresses previous concerns and provides a stable setup for the tests.
19-20: Dependency installation looks goodThe installation of graphviz via Homebrew and Python dependencies from requirements.txt is correctly implemented. This ensures all necessary dependencies are available for the tests.
1-24: Overall, the workflow is well-structured with room for minor improvementsThe GitHub Actions workflow for spec testing is well-configured and addresses most of the previous concerns. Key points:
- The workflow and job names are now appropriately descriptive.
- Python setup and dependency installation are correctly implemented.
- The workflow runs the necessary tests.
Areas for potential improvement:
- Consider using a Linux runner instead of macOS for better performance and cost-effectiveness.
- Enhance the test execution step with error handling and artifact collection for improved debugging capabilities.
Addressing these points will further improve the robustness and maintainability of the workflow.
.github/workflows/lint.yml (2)
38-41: Excellent addition of Black formatter actionThe inclusion of the Black formatter as a GitHub Action is a great improvement to the workflow. It ensures consistent code formatting across the project. The options
--check --verboseare appropriate for a CI workflow, as they will check the formatting without making changes and provide detailed output.
Line range hint
1-41: Overall workflow improvements enhance CI processThe changes made to this workflow file significantly improve the CI process:
- Updating to the latest versions of checkout (v4) and Python setup (v5) actions ensures you're using the most recent features and bug fixes.
- Adding caching for pip dependencies will speed up subsequent runs.
- The conditional execution of mypy/pytype based on Python version allows for comprehensive type checking across different Python versions.
- Including the Black formatter as a GitHub Action ensures consistent code style throughout the project.
These enhancements will lead to more efficient, reliable, and maintainable CI processes. Great job on these improvements!
🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint
29-29: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2193:warning:1:54: The arguments to this comparison can never be equal. Make sure your syntax is correct
(shellcheck)
| spec-test: | ||
| runs-on: macos-13 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider reviewing the runner choice
The job name "spec-test" is clear and appropriate. However, the choice of macos-13 as the runner should be reconsidered. Unless your tests specifically require macOS features, using a Linux runner (e.g., ubuntu-latest) might be faster and more cost-effective for GitHub Actions.
| - name: Run specs tests script | ||
| run: | | ||
| mkdir tmp_out | ||
| ./test_specs.sh test/ specs/ tmp_out/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance test execution with error handling and artifact collection
While the test execution steps are correct, consider the following improvements:
- Add error handling to the script execution:
- name: Run specs tests script
run: |
set -e
mkdir tmp_out
./test_specs.sh test/ specs/ tmp_out/ || { echo "Spec tests failed"; exit 1; }- Add a step to upload test results as artifacts:
- uses: actions/upload-artifact@v3
if: always()
with:
name: spec-test-results
path: tmp_out/These changes will make the workflow more robust and easier to debug by providing visibility into test results, even if the workflow fails.
| - name: Setup Graphviz | ||
| uses: ts-graphviz/setup-graphviz@v2 | ||
| - name: Set up Python ${{ matrix.python-version }} | ||
| uses: actions/setup-python@v5 | ||
| id: cpython3 | ||
| with: | ||
| python-version: ${{ matrix.python-version }} | ||
| cache: pip | ||
| cache-dependency-path: requirements.txt | ||
| allow-prereleases: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Great job updating actions and optimizing with caching!
The updates to the checkout (v4) and Python setup (v5) actions, along with the addition of caching for pip dependencies, are excellent improvements that will enhance the workflow's efficiency.
As suggested in a previous review, consider adding a comment to explain why prereleases are allowed. This will help other contributors understand the intention behind this choice.
Here's a suggested change to implement this:
with:
python-version: ${{ matrix.python-version }}
cache: pip
cache-dependency-path: requirements.txt
+ # Allow prereleases to test compatibility with upcoming Python versions
allow-prereleases: true📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - uses: actions/checkout@v4 | |
| - name: Setup Graphviz | |
| uses: ts-graphviz/setup-graphviz@v2 | |
| - name: Set up Python ${{ matrix.python-version }} | |
| uses: actions/setup-python@v5 | |
| id: cpython3 | |
| with: | |
| python-version: ${{ matrix.python-version }} | |
| cache: pip | |
| cache-dependency-path: requirements.txt | |
| allow-prereleases: true | |
| - uses: actions/checkout@v4 | |
| - name: Setup Graphviz | |
| uses: ts-graphviz/setup-graphviz@v2 | |
| - name: Set up Python ${{ matrix.python-version }} | |
| uses: actions/setup-python@v5 | |
| id: cpython3 | |
| with: | |
| python-version: ${{ matrix.python-version }} | |
| cache: pip | |
| cache-dependency-path: requirements.txt | |
| # Allow prereleases to test compatibility with upcoming Python versions | |
| allow-prereleases: true |
| run: | | ||
| if [[ '${{ steps.cpython3.outputs.python-version }}' == 3.11* ]]; then | ||
| pip install pytype | ||
| pytype -j auto graphviz2drawio | ||
| else | ||
| echo "pytype does not support >= 3.12: https://github.com/google/pytype/issues/1475" | ||
| pip install mypy | ||
| mypy graphviz2drawio --ignore-missing-imports | ||
| fi |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Improve version comparison and update comment for pytype support
The conditional execution of mypy/pytype based on the Python version is a good approach. However, there are a couple of improvements we can make:
- The version comparison can be optimized for better reliability:
- if [[ '${{ steps.cpython3.outputs.python-version }}' == 3.11* ]]; then
+ if [[ '${{ steps.cpython3.outputs.python-version }}' == 3.11.* ]]; thenThis change ensures correct matching for any 3.11.x version.
- Update the comment about pytype support to provide more context:
- echo "pytype does not support >= 3.12: https://github.com/google/pytype/issues/1475"
+ echo "pytype does not support Python versions >= 3.12 (as of February 2024): https://github.com/google/pytype/issues/1475"This provides more context and a timestamp for future reference.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - name: Run mypy if on 3.12, pytype otherwise | |
| run: | | |
| if [[ '${{ steps.cpython3.outputs.python-version }}' == 3.11* ]]; then | |
| pip install pytype | |
| pytype -j auto graphviz2drawio | |
| else | |
| echo "pytype does not support >= 3.12: https://github.com/google/pytype/issues/1475" | |
| pip install mypy | |
| mypy graphviz2drawio --ignore-missing-imports | |
| fi | |
| - name: Run mypy if on 3.12, pytype otherwise | |
| run: | | |
| if [[ '${{ steps.cpython3.outputs.python-version }}' == 3.11.* ]]; then | |
| pip install pytype | |
| pytype -j auto graphviz2drawio | |
| else | |
| echo "pytype does not support Python versions >= 3.12 (as of February 2024): https://github.com/google/pytype/issues/1475" | |
| pip install mypy | |
| mypy graphviz2drawio --ignore-missing-imports | |
| fi |
🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint
29-29: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2193:warning:1:54: The arguments to this comparison can never be equal. Make sure your syntax is correct
(shellcheck)
Summary by Sourcery
Add scripts for generating and testing specification files, and enhance the file conversion process to ensure output directories are created if they do not exist.
New Features:
test_specs.shto automate testing by comparing generated output files with expected specifications.generate_specs.shto automate the generation of specification files from source files.Enhancements:
graphviz2drawio/__main__.pyby ensuring the output directory structure is created if it does not exist before writing the converted file.Tests:
test_specs.shto validate the conversion process by comparing output files against specification files.Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
specsdirectories.Bug Fixes
Chores
.gitignoreto exclude temporary output directories..typos.tomlto exclude additional directories from processing.