-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Feature request: Class diagram display regions #3384
Comments
We could use subgrapgs/clusters for this. It is possible. @ashishjain0512 What do you think? What should the syntax look like? |
Pretty sure this is a feature like namespaces or packages. |
@IceflowRE Indeed, namespaces is almost exactly what I proposed. |
Any ETA for nested namespaces and/or packages for class diagrams ? |
This issue also requests the same feature #5487 |
Can we have this feature also added to the ERD diagrams? |
I am closing this issue, as the original request can be handled by using namespaces |
We use the mermaid class diagram to design database schemes since that's easy for developers and a visual representation can be auto generated through the live editor. But when the diagram becomes bigger (+30 classes), the visual representation becomes complicated because relations will cross other relations. This is because we can't choose which classes are visualized from left-to-right (because of the relationships). The result is a visual scheme in which many relationships cross each other and classes which belong together are scattered from left to right.
I would like to suggest a feature of something like 'display regions'.
The alternative I try to do now, is to reorder the class relations, but at this point (+30 classes) it's pointless because some classes jump visually from left to right because of the may relationships between the classes.
Note: this feature request is similar to the existing subgraph functionality of a flowchart diagram.
Example of a scheme without display regions (as-is):
Example of a scheme with display regions (to-be):
(Note: the scheme should be cleaner and relationships should cross less)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: