Files
next-ai-draw-io/lib/diagram-engine/graph.ts
dayuan.jiang 6b5fd613f2 feat(diagram-engine): label avoidance, paired opposite edges, semantic group colours
A git-workflow flowchart rendered with no overlaps but read poorly. Three
distinct causes, each fixed and measured:

1. Edge labels sat on boxes and on each other (4 collisions on the
   reported diagram; 280 across 250 generated flowcharts). The router
   keeps LINES off the boxes but a label renders at its edge's midpoint,
   which on a long edge is beside exactly the things the line was routed
   around. placeLabels slides each label along its own edge to a clear
   spot — longest edges first, midpoint-outward tries — written as the
   geometry's relative x, which draw.io natively supports. Corpus: 280
   label collisions -> 8.

2. A->B and B->A were routed independently, so "git add" ran straight
   while "git reset" wandered through a different corridor with a kink.
   Opposite edges that agree on axis now get two absolute parallel tracks
   in the strip where the two boxes overlap, a constant 24px apart,
   converted back to port fractions. Zero crossing regressions.

3. All boxes rendered the same white, because the render layer's
   fill/stroke support was never reachable: neither add_box's schema nor
   draw_graph's nodes exposed it. Rather than exposing raw hex (the model
   picks mismatched saturations, differently every time), nodes take a
   semantic group name and the engine maps groups to a fixed palette of
   six paired fill/strokes in order of first appearance. The model names
   the zones - remote vs local vs temp - and never touches a colour.

532 unit tests pass; the 5 diagram e2e tests pass in a real browser.
2026-08-09 18:59:34 +09:00

379 lines
14 KiB
TypeScript

/**
* Graph → layers. What turns a flat list of nodes and arrows into a diagram.
*
* The engine's layout can only arrange what nesting tells it to: a container stacks its
* children in one direction, so six boxes declared in a row become six boxes in a row. For
* a flowchart that is the wrong answer, and measurably so — an order-approval flow declared
* in its natural order comes out as one column, which forces the arrow from the decision to
* its second branch to jump over the first branch, and the arrow to the merge point to jump
* back over that. The layout never looked at the arrows.
*
* This computes what it should have looked at. Three steps, the standard shape of a layered
* graph drawing (Sugiyama's algorithm):
*
* 1. LAYER — how far along the flow each node sits. Longest path from a source, so an
* arrow always points forwards and no arrow skips backwards through a layer.
* 2. ORDER — who goes left and who goes right within a layer. Chosen to reduce the number
* of arrows that cross, which is what makes a flowchart readable.
* 3. EMIT — one invisible row container per layer, which the existing layout then places.
*
* Step 3 is why this file is small: the coordinate work already exists, and it is the same
* code that lays out an AWS diagram. What was missing was only the decision of what goes in
* which row.
*/
import type { Operation } from "./operations"
import { groupColour } from "./render"
import type { BoxShape } from "./types"
/** A node in the graph the caller wants drawn. */
export interface GraphNode {
id: string
label: string
/** Flowchart outline. `decision` for a branch, `terminator` for a start or end point. */
shape?: BoxShape
/** Catalog stencil name. When set the node renders as an icon rather than a box. */
icon?: string
/**
* Semantic group name, e.g. "remote" or "local". Nodes sharing a group get the same
* fill colour from the engine's palette, assigned in order of first appearance — the
* caller names the grouping and never touches a colour.
*/
group?: string
}
/** An arrow. Direction matters: it is what determines the layering. */
export interface GraphEdge {
source: string
target: string
label?: string
dashed?: boolean
}
export interface GraphOptions {
/** "col" (default): layers stack downwards. "row": layers run left to right. */
flow?: "col" | "row"
}
/** Distance between layers. */
const LAYER_GAP = 48
/** Distance between nodes within a layer. */
const NODE_GAP = 60
/** Prefix for the generated layer container ids. */
const LAYER_ID = "__layer"
export interface GraphResult {
operations: Operation[]
/** The nodes of each layer, in the order they were placed. */
layers: string[][]
/** Edges dropped because an endpoint is not in the node list. */
unknownEndpoints: string[]
/** Edges that had to be treated as loops rather than as layering constraints. */
backEdges: { source: string; target: string }[]
}
/**
* Break every cycle, so the graph can be layered at all.
*
* A depth-first walk; any arrow pointing at a node still on the current path is a way back
* to where we came from, and cannot be a "this comes after that" constraint. Those arrows
* are still DRAWN — a review loop is the point of the diagram — they just do not get a say
* in which layer anything lands in.
*/
function breakCycles(
nodes: string[],
edges: GraphEdge[],
): { forward: GraphEdge[]; back: GraphEdge[] } {
const out = new Map<string, GraphEdge[]>(nodes.map((n) => [n, []]))
for (const e of edges) out.get(e.source)?.push(e)
const forward: GraphEdge[] = []
const back: GraphEdge[] = []
const onPath = new Set<string>()
const done = new Set<string>()
// An explicit stack, not recursion: a 500-node dependency graph is a plausible input and
// a recursive walk over one would overflow.
for (const root of nodes) {
if (done.has(root)) continue
const stack: { id: string; next: number }[] = [{ id: root, next: 0 }]
onPath.add(root)
while (stack.length > 0) {
const top = stack[stack.length - 1]
const list = out.get(top.id) ?? []
if (top.next >= list.length) {
onPath.delete(top.id)
done.add(top.id)
stack.pop()
continue
}
const e = list[top.next++]
if (onPath.has(e.target)) {
back.push(e)
continue
}
forward.push(e)
if (!done.has(e.target)) {
onPath.add(e.target)
stack.push({ id: e.target, next: 0 })
}
}
}
return { forward, back }
}
/**
* Assign each node to a layer: the longest path to it from any node with no predecessor.
*
* Longest path rather than shortest, because a node has to come after EVERYTHING that feeds
* it. Take the shortest and an arrow ends up pointing backwards: with `a→b`, `a→c`, `c→b`,
* the shortest path puts b in layer 1 alongside c, and then `c→b` points sideways.
*/
function assignLayers(nodes: string[], forward: GraphEdge[]): string[][] {
const layer = new Map<string, number>(nodes.map((n) => [n, 0]))
// Relaxation, bounded by the node count: the longest possible chain visits every node
// once, so after that many rounds nothing can still be moving.
for (let round = 0; round < nodes.length; round++) {
let moved = false
for (const e of forward) {
const want = (layer.get(e.source) ?? 0) + 1
if (want > (layer.get(e.target) ?? 0)) {
layer.set(e.target, want)
moved = true
}
}
if (!moved) break
}
const depth = Math.max(0, ...layer.values()) + 1
const layers: string[][] = Array.from({ length: depth }, () => [])
// Declaration order within a layer, so the ordering pass starts somewhere predictable.
for (const n of nodes) layers[layer.get(n) ?? 0].push(n)
return layers
}
/**
* Reorder each layer to reduce the number of arrows that cross.
*
* Barycentre sweeping: a node is placed at the average position of the nodes it connects to
* in the neighbouring layer, and the whole diagram is swept downwards then upwards
* repeatedly. Each sweep can only be judged against the previous layer's order, so a node
* pulled into a better place drags its own neighbours in the next sweep.
*
* The heuristic, not an exact minimum: finding the true minimum number of crossings is
* NP-hard even for two layers. In practice this reaches zero crossings on the flowcharts the
* model actually produces — verified on a 14-node pipeline with two diamonds and a rollback
* loop, and on a bipartite graph whose declared order forces three crossings.
*/
function reduceCrossings(layers: string[][], edges: GraphEdge[]): void {
if (layers.length < 2) return
const PASSES = 8
const into = new Map<string, string[]>()
const outOf = new Map<string, string[]>()
for (const e of edges) {
if (e.source === e.target) continue
;(into.get(e.target) ?? into.set(e.target, []).get(e.target))?.push(
e.source,
)
;(outOf.get(e.source) ?? outOf.set(e.source, []).get(e.source))?.push(
e.target,
)
}
let best = layers.map((l) => [...l])
let bestScore = countCrossings(layers, edges)
for (let pass = 0; pass < PASSES && bestScore > 0; pass++) {
const pos = new Map<string, number>()
for (const l of layers)
l.forEach((n, i) => {
pos.set(n, i)
})
const down = pass % 2 === 0
const order = down
? layers.map((_, i) => i).slice(1)
: layers
.map((_, i) => i)
.slice(0, -1)
.reverse()
for (const i of order) {
const neighbours = down ? into : outOf
const key = new Map<string, number>()
layers[i].forEach((n, idx) => {
const nb = (neighbours.get(n) ?? [])
.map((m) => pos.get(m))
.filter((v): v is number => v !== undefined)
// A node with no neighbour in that direction keeps its place, rather than
// being pushed to one end by a default of zero.
key.set(
n,
nb.length ? nb.reduce((a, b) => a + b, 0) / nb.length : idx,
)
})
layers[i] = [...layers[i]].sort(
(a, b) => (key.get(a) ?? 0) - (key.get(b) ?? 0),
)
}
// Keep the best arrangement seen: sweeping is not monotonic, and a later pass can be
// worse than an earlier one.
const score = countCrossings(layers, edges)
if (score < bestScore) {
bestScore = score
best = layers.map((l) => [...l])
}
}
for (let i = 0; i < layers.length; i++) layers[i] = best[i]
}
/**
* How many pairs of arrows cross between adjacent layers.
*
* Two arrows between the same pair of layers cross exactly when their endpoints are in the
* opposite order on the two sides. That is all this counts — arrows spanning more than one
* layer are ignored here, because their crossings depend on routing rather than ordering.
*/
function countCrossings(layers: string[][], edges: GraphEdge[]): number {
const layerOf = new Map<string, number>()
const posOf = new Map<string, number>()
layers.forEach((l, i) => {
l.forEach((n, j) => {
layerOf.set(n, i)
posOf.set(n, j)
})
})
let total = 0
for (let i = 0; i + 1 < layers.length; i++) {
const span = edges.filter(
(e) =>
layerOf.get(e.source) === i && layerOf.get(e.target) === i + 1,
)
for (let a = 0; a < span.length; a++)
for (let b = a + 1; b < span.length; b++) {
const s1 = posOf.get(span[a].source) ?? 0
const t1 = posOf.get(span[a].target) ?? 0
const s2 = posOf.get(span[b].source) ?? 0
const t2 = posOf.get(span[b].target) ?? 0
if ((s1 - s2) * (t1 - t2) < 0) total++
}
}
return total
}
/**
* Turn a graph into the operations that draw it.
*
* The output is ordinary operations — nothing here is a new kind of thing the rest of the
* engine has to know about. A layer of one node is emitted directly rather than wrapped,
* because a single-child row container would just add a level of nesting with nothing to
* arrange.
*/
export function graphToOperations(
nodes: GraphNode[],
edges: GraphEdge[],
opts: GraphOptions = {},
): GraphResult {
const flow = opts.flow ?? "col"
const ids = nodes.map((n) => n.id)
const known = new Set(ids)
const unknownEndpoints: string[] = []
const usable: GraphEdge[] = []
for (const e of edges) {
if (!known.has(e.source)) unknownEndpoints.push(e.source)
if (!known.has(e.target)) unknownEndpoints.push(e.target)
if (known.has(e.source) && known.has(e.target)) usable.push(e)
}
// A self-loop tells us nothing about layering and would make the cycle break drop a real
// arrow, so it is set aside and drawn as-is.
const loops = usable.filter((e) => e.source === e.target)
const between = usable.filter((e) => e.source !== e.target)
const { forward, back } = breakCycles(ids, between)
const layers = assignLayers(ids, forward)
reduceCrossings(layers, forward)
// The flow axis is the OUTER container's direction; a layer runs across it.
const outerDir = flow
const layerDir = flow === "col" ? "row" : "col"
const root = `${LAYER_ID}s`
const operations: Operation[] = [
{
op: "add_container",
id: root,
label: "",
dir: outerDir,
gap: LAYER_GAP,
},
]
const byId = new Map(nodes.map((n) => [n.id, n]))
// Groups become colours here, in order of first appearance, so "the second group named
// is green" holds for every diagram the engine draws. The caller only names groups.
const groupIndex = new Map<string, number>()
for (const n of nodes)
if (n.group && !groupIndex.has(n.group))
groupIndex.set(n.group, groupIndex.size)
const add = (id: string, parent: string): Operation => {
const n = byId.get(id) as GraphNode
const colour =
n.group !== undefined
? groupColour(groupIndex.get(n.group) ?? 0)
: null
return n.icon
? {
op: "add_icon",
id: n.id,
parent,
name: n.icon,
label: n.label,
}
: {
op: "add_box",
id: n.id,
parent,
label: n.label,
...(n.shape && n.shape !== "box" ? { shape: n.shape } : {}),
...(colour
? { fill: colour.fill, stroke: colour.stroke }
: {}),
}
}
layers.forEach((members, i) => {
if (members.length === 0) return
if (members.length === 1) {
operations.push(add(members[0], root))
return
}
const band = `${LAYER_ID}${i}`
operations.push({
op: "add_container",
id: band,
parent: root,
label: "",
dir: layerDir,
gap: NODE_GAP,
})
for (const m of members) operations.push(add(m, band))
})
for (const e of [...between, ...loops])
operations.push({
op: "link",
source: e.source,
target: e.target,
...(e.label ? { label: e.label } : {}),
...(e.dashed ? { dashed: true } : {}),
})
return {
operations,
layers: layers.filter((l) => l.length > 0),
unknownEndpoints: [...new Set(unknownEndpoints)],
backEdges: back.map((e) => ({ source: e.source, target: e.target })),
}
}