nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Uniform layout distribution of models in Medini Analyze

medini_1079358516

I was provided with a script to organize the models I use in Medini (attached). I have since enhanced it so that it can handle any number of components and subcomponents within a model, and so that it arranges them in a more grid-like layout by limiting each row to three components. I would now like to extend the script further with the following capabilities:

Color-code elements based on their names
Distribute ports more evenly so they are not clustered together
Allow interfaces to be repositioned manually

Find more posts tagged with

medini

medini legacy

Accepted answers

medini_1024169437

Thanks Byron for posting this to the community.

Coloring a diagram "Shape" should be fairly straight, maybe you start playing with the attributes "fillColor" and "lineColor".

Distributing ports might be a challenge, would be interesting which ideas you have there.

What do you mean by the last point?

Jan

All comments

medini_1024169437

Thanks Byron for posting this to the community.

Coloring a diagram "Shape" should be fairly straight, maybe you start playing with the attributes "fillColor" and "lineColor".

Distributing ports might be a challenge, would be interesting which ideas you have there.

What do you mean by the last point?

Jan

medini_1079358516

Hi Jan,

For the interfaces question, I mean that the lines connecting the ports on each component are unable to be moved, I can move the ports themselves, just not the lines they are connected to.

medini_1024169437

Understood. Hm, I tested your script and indeed the connector "shape" is not draggable by the user. If you remove it manually from the diagram and redrag it to the diagram, it is posisble though.

So I assume (just assume, not tested) that you have to drop the connector to the diagram in the first place together with all parts and ports?

Jan

medini_1063548292

Hi Byron

this a bit tricky I had faced similar issue when developing a layouting script for another diagram.
lesson I learned: the shape manipulation is not enough and does not work on couple of occasions.

I have to manipulate its editpart through diagramedit part command ( move, resize ) to perform and simulate an user UI action. Then it partially recovered . I used ChangeBoundsRequest from the gef plugin.

there may be other optoins but I learned that a move or resize needed to be somehow triggered so that the labels and other related shapes(Labes, connectors) are "unlocked" from "metastate".

Note: I also upgraded the drop objects to diagram to respect some visual styling of the target diagram. I posted it somewhere here on the forum add element to diagram

I also recall Jan mentioning that they would like to in parallel revisit the function in the ui.js and improve to be compatible when used in hook scripts Jan can comment if this was actually taken up.

You can confirm that it is the same behavior case for you by trying following:

- create a new diagram and run your script

- open it in editor

- locate any port , select and just touch it and move it (back and forth) using arrow direction keyboard keys
For instance port at the vertical (left/right) edge move up and back down, for those on horizontal edge (top/bottom ) movie it left and right

You should see some curing for port and associate labels connectors.

Maybe ( i am just blindly guessing here) the dropping in the correct order and on correct place should be also way out ,simulate an ui drag and drop operation but in correct sequence, meaning

first drop the sysml part(s), update layout of parts

drop port(s) at appropriate locations (owning parts) re-layout ports

drop connectors , update their layout.

I did not try the last approach but it may result in the same result and someUI diagram edit par action would need to be triggered as well.

Marian

medini_1079358516

I was able to implement color‑coding of the components based on their names by using a color map dictionary that identifies the first matching entry.

I also determined that the reason I was unable to move the interfaces was the avoid obstructions setting. When this option is turned off (or set to false in the script), the interfaces can be moved as expected.

I have attached the updated code for your review. If you have any additional suggestions for improvement, I would greatly appreciate them. While the current version works well, I would still like to:

Proportionally size the components based on the number of ports.

Apply color‑coding to interfaces based on their names.

Automatically select all elements and apply auto‑size at the end of the script so this step is not manual in the new diagram.

Hide interface names (labels) via the script and, if possible, provide a pop‑up that allows the user to enter the name and corresponding color for components, interfaces, and ports. This would be much better than manually providing this in code.

Thank you again for all of your help and guidance.

medini_1024169437

Very nice, thanks for posting Byron.

Jan

medini_1079358516

No problem. In addition to my previous question, any advice on the ability to limit the depth or specific components that would be in the model in general, ideally through a popup overlay as well, would be great too.

Thank you

medini_1024169437

Byron, do you want to limit the depth on the diagram? And what shall that popup do, sorry for the maybe obvious questions.

Jan

medini_1079358516

Hi Jan,

Instead of depth, there may be certain components, and its subcomponents, that the user want to exclude from the diagram. That is what I was suggesting the popup to do - the user would select what components they want to include the diagram.

Byron

medini_1024169437

Got it. Why not using ui.js and opening a object selection dialog using "selectElement", pre-select everything and let the user deselect wat he does not want? The script then later can use the information to exclude the non-selected objects from the drop.

Alternatively you may use pre-defined tags to include or exclude objects.

Jan

medini_1079358516

Thank you Jan.

Additionally, I am curious on if there is way to alter the way in which the layout is created. For example, we may want to select whether we want the orientation to be from left to right or from top to bottom. Any guidance on that would be great.

medini_1063548292

Hi Byron,

I am not sure but i believe that there is orientation on the System model diagrams.

You can actually predefine some label visibilities for the diagram.

You need to configure it on the Digram object itself added to the style's property

(BolleanValueStyle class)

the currently supported and reflect by the diagram viewer are:

Eventually also a zoom settings has to be stored somewhere as well.

So in case the style is not yet present on the Diagram you can create a new BolleanValueStyle, setup name,value

and add it to

PJDiagram.orignalModel.dagram.styles.add(..)
or alternatively accessing the Diagram from any Shape

Shape.diagram.styles.add(...)

this is an example of the diagram styles recorder for system model diagram:

'org.eclipse.gmf.runtime.notation.impl.BooleanValueStyleImpl@4e7e6a54 (name: hideASILLabels) (booleanValue: false)'

'org.eclipse.gmf.runtime.notation.impl.BooleanValueStyleImpl@71df1486 (name: hideStereotypeLabels) (booleanValue: false)'

'org.eclipse.gmf.runtime.notation.impl.BooleanValueStyleImpl@4beb98f7 (name: hideTypeLabels) (booleanValue: false)'

'org.eclipse.gmf.runtime.notation.impl.BooleanValueStyleImpl@198e9a61 (name: showInheritedFeatures) (booleanValue: false)'

Marian