[Feature Request]Little tweak on wires

[cymplecy]

I'm just wondering if a little tweak could be made to the wire routing just to put a gap between the wires and node statuses when looping back from right top left

[edit]
Don't need as much room as this workaround - just enough so that the wire isn't touching the status text/indicator

[knolleary]

Whilst I fully understand the desire, this isn't a 'little tweak'.

We have to consider all the cases based on the relative Y-position of the two nodes. You've highlighted the 'easy' case where the nodes are level. But as soon as they are more staggered, there are lots of cases where this isn't an obvious 'better' route.

The last time this was suggested and discussed (can't find the thread, but it definitely has had come up before), it was decided against as it would make the cases where nodes don't have status (which, lets be honest, is most of them), less space efficient.

For example, you wouldn't be able to do something like this:

Any change would have to make the wiring path conditional on whether a node has status or not - which is something we'd tried to avoid doing.

Still - without promising anything - it's about time for my annual session of trying to make the wiring a bit more aesthetically pleasing...

[smanjunath211]

Flippable node wiring direction

This has been discussed a few times before and the conclusion has always been this isn't something we want to do. It would get super confusing if the flows can go in any direction. If you were zoomed in to a part of a flow, you'd have no idea what direction it was running in. Arrow heads would help (and there is a PR in the works that will add an option to display arrow heads). But I still think switching directions like this would be confusing.

arrow heads to indicate flow direction?

[knolleary]

How does this look:

When the nodes are horizontally level (with a little bit of grace for those who don't snap to grid ):

• smoother curves coming out of the nodes
• if either end has status, give a bit more room

For reference, here is what that exact arrangement looks like in NR 3.x:

c

[Steve-Mcl]

Oooh they are smooooth. That's looks really nice. Especially compared to previous.

If I were to nitpick anything, the gap looks like it could be slightly reduced without hitting the status - but it's personal.

[knolleary]

@Steve-Mcl yup agreed - will pull it in a little bit.

Also noting it doesn't do anything for nodes with multi-line comments.... that'll be next year's wiring improvement task.

[dceejay]

Yes. I Agree with Steve.

[jbudd]

The more nearly semicircular curves are more comfortable to look at.
How does a node with two outputs (and a status?) fare in this scheme?

I sometimes wish the wire could fit between the node and it's status.

[smanjunath211]

@jbudd

I sometimes wish the wire could fit between the node and it's status.

and push status text a tad bit lower

[Steve-Mcl]

@jbudd

I sometimes wish the wire could fit between the node and it's status.

TBH, it can never be catered for in all eventualities so my personal wishlist would be the status shape/text would have a +1 z on all the wires & have a "frosted glass" background so that the text "pops" regardless of wiring.

---

actually, I prefer it when the "frosting" hugs the letering like a drop shadow - but I think you get the point

[jbudd]

Hmm well "I sometimes wish" does not really translate to "Make it so".
In case of doubt, I think the editor appearance is really excellent. It shows that the product is made by people with an appreciation of graphic design and amazingly they are prepared to discuss possible enhancements with plebeian users (cf Raspberry Pi forums)

Now then, WIndows Vista "Aero" node statuses. I'm sure something could be done with CSS. I don't have any cufflinks for the background though.

[Steve-Mcl]

@jbudd

Now then, WIndows Vista "Aero" node statuses

ah, (bad) memories

@jbudd

I'm sure something could be done with CSS

That was codepen

[TotallyInformation]

Just remember that "clever" layouts also need more work around accessibility.

The amount of work required can escalate real quick.

[knolleary]

Done

[Steve-Mcl]

its so pretty

[dceejay]

That is definitely one of those “yeah! Obvious now you see it” things. So much better !

[CanyonCasa]

Just seeing this… I’ve had similar “feedback’ routing issues where wires propagate across a flow right to left.

At one point I tried using a junction, which enables the user to determine the spacing between nodes and wires based on placement of the junction. However, a junction only allows inputs on the left and outputs on the right, which results in a wired crossover. It occurred to me that if a junction could be mirrored horizontally (i.e. inputs on the right and outputs on the left it would work well.

I’m not saying this is trivial to implement as I lack knowledge of the implementation of Node-red graphics but it would address this issue.

I step further would be to enable mirroring any node. While signal paths conventionally flow left to right, control feedback diagrams, schematics, and flow charts often have paths that flow right to left. This would cleanup such flows.

[ralphwetzel]

@CanyonCasa

At one point I tried using a junction, which enables the user to determine the spacing between nodes and wires based on placement of the junction. However, a junction only allows inputs on the left and outputs on the right, which results in a wired crossover. It occurred to me that if a junction could be mirrored horizontally (i.e. inputs on the right and outputs on the left it would work well.

I'm not sure I get your point.
Could you create an example (screenshot) that shows the issue you try to address with this proposal?

[CanyonCasa]

@ralphwetzel, not very well drawn, but here is a hacked up image of a simple example of what i am suggesting...

[Steve-Mcl]

Hmm yeah, not something I would vote for tbh. The current method of a "message flows from left to right" is 100% unambiguous. This is a recipe for confusion IMO.

Ps, if you feel strongly about this FR, then I suggest you start a new feature request thread and state your case - see what traction you get.