addded family grouping with subgraphs

[markgrahamdawson]

Partly addresses issue https://github.com/cylc/cylc-ui/issues/1130 The grouping of nodes by cycle point is completed in this pr https://github.com/cylc/cylc-ui/pull/1763

----Notes on work----

Some ideas for a unified approach to grouping/collapsing cycles/families. I'm suggesting unifying the handling of cycles and families (note, cycles represent the "root" family so they are essentially the same thing).

Grouping/Ungrouping - Drawing dashed boxes around a cycle/family.

Collapsing/Expanding - Reducing a family down to a single node.

Limitations of the Cylc 7 approach:

• Once you expand a family it's gone, the tasks which belong to the expanded family are mixed in with other tasks in the graph, you can not tell what family they belong to. This is an issue if the user wants to examine a component within the workflow.
• No visibility of the inheritance hierarchy (i.e. what can we expand/collapse).
• No visibility of what you have expanded/collapsed (i.e. where are we in the hierarchy).

Note, for simplicity, this approach groups/collapses all instances of selected families rather than managing this at a per-cycle level. I think this is probably more aligned with expectations, but does represent a minor limitation, e.g. there's no ability to collapse all but one cycle. The ability to expand/collapse specific cycle instances would be a reasonable enhancement.

Design Sketch

Had a quick discussion on this (more to come):

• Can't really think of a valid use case for collapsing all cycles (users would do this in the tree view if they wanted to), so perhaps treat cycles differently (i.e. collapse per-cycle rather than all cycles) and remove from the menus.
• Better expand/collapse icon (obviously).
• The Cylc 7 default of only expanding the cycle point (i.e. show top-level families only) is a reasonable protection for viewing large workflows. We might want to continue with this, or perhaps do something smart (e.g. only collapse families if there are lots of tasks on load).

Check List

• [ ] I have read CONTRIBUTING.md and added my name as a Code Contributor.
• [ ] Contains logically grouped changes (else tidy your branch by rebase).
• [ ] Does not contain off-topic changes (use other PRs for other changes).
• [ ] Applied any dependency changes to both setup.cfg (and conda-environment.yml if present).
• [ ] Tests are included (or explain why tests are not needed).
• [ ] CHANGES.md entry included if this is a change that can affect users
• [ ] Cylc-Doc pull request opened if required at cylc/cylc-doc/pull/XXXX.
• [ ] If this is a bug fix, PR should be raised against the relevant ?.?.x branch.

[markgrahamdawson]

Still to do (in order of priority).

1. Work out how to implement nested families 2. Get graph status showing on graph nodes
2. When switching to another workflow and returning the graph fails to load
3. Expand collapse icons on each node (and subgraph) on the graph 5. If collapsed by family+ grouped by family - dont draw graph around collapsed node (see cycle point functionality)
4. The edges and nodes are now let variables (so they can be updated) - is this ok? Might want to change them to something else?

[markgrahamdawson]

Im struggling with grouping by families due to the fact that they can be nested ...

The context

Collapsing and Expanding nodes is easier as the .dot file just needs the node/s added/removed ....

"~mdawson/runtime-tutorial-families-two/run1//20240724T0000Z/get_observations_aldergrove" [
            label=<
              <TABLE HEIGHT="132.447509765625">
                <TR>
                  <TD PORT="in" WIDTH="100"></TD>
                </TR>
                <TR>
                  <TD PORT="task" WIDTH="100" HEIGHT="132.447509765625">icon</TD>
                  <TD WIDTH="628.4224853515625">~mdawson/runtime-tutorial-families-two/run1//20240724T0000Z/get_observations_aldergrove</TD>
                </TR>
                <TR>
                  <TD PORT="out" WIDTH="100"></TD>
                </TR>
              </TABLE>
            >
          ]

and the edge (relationship between the node and other nodes) defined... "~mdawson/runtime-tutorial-families-two/run1//20240724T0300Z/get_observations_aldergrove":out -> "~mdawson/runtime-tutorial-families-two/run1//20240724T0300Z/consolidate_observations":in

This means I dont have to directly deal with a hierarchy (nested structure) as things are just being added/removed.

For grouping the syntax is a little different, using subgraphs ...

                  subgraph cluster_margin_family16
                  {
                    margin=100.0
                    label="margin"
                    subgraph cluster_family16 {"~mdawson/runtime-tutorial-families-two/run1//20240724T0000Z/get_observations_shetland","~mdawson/runtime-tutorial-families-two/run1//20240724T0000Z/get_observations_aldergrove";

                      label = "GET_OBSERVATIONS_NORTH20240724T0000Z";

                      fontsize = "70px"
                      style=dashed
                      margin=60.0
                  }
                }

For grouping by cycle point there are no nested cycle points (doesnt make sense) so its just a case of making subgraph for each cycle. The subgraphs do need to account for the fact that the nodes may have been expanded or collapsed but that can be managed by calculating what nodes need to be included from the nodes variable - which is up-to-date with what has been expanded/collapsed. Also understanding the hierarchical relationship is easier because its contained in the node id whether it has been expanded or collapsed - it will always have a cycle associated with it.

The problem

The problem is with nested grouping which is relevant for

1. family groups inside cycle groups
2. family groups inside family groups.

The way this is represented in the .dot code is by having subgraphs within subgraphs...

subgraph FAMILY {
  "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/SUBFAMILY", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/task1", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/task2", ;
  label = Family
  subgraph SUBFAMILY {
    "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/task1", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/task2", ;
    label = SubFamily
  }
}

The above is an simple example of some graphviz code for a simple nested family situation. Below is an example for a more complicated one...

subgraph FAMILY {
  "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/SUBFAMILY_A", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/SUBFAMILY_B", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/SUBFAMILY_A1", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/SUBFAMILY_A2", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/SUBFAMILY_B1", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/SUBFAMILY_B2", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_y", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_x", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_m", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_n", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_g", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_h", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_i", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_j" ;
  label = Family
  subgraph SUBFAMILY_A {
 "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/SUBFAMILY_A1", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/SUBFAMILY_A2", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_y", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_x", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_m", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_n" ;
    label = SubFamily_A
        subgraph SUBFAMILY_A1 { "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_y", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_x" ;
          label = SubFamily_A1
      }
      subgraph SUBFAMILY_A2 { "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_m", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_n" ;
          label = SubFamily_A1
      }
  }
  subgraph SUBFAMILY_B {
 "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/SUBFAMILY_B1", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/SUBFAMILY_B2", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_g", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_h", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_i", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_j" ;
    label = SubFamily_B
        subgraph SUBFAMILY_B1 { "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_g", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_h" ;
          label = SubFamily_B1
      }
      subgraph SUBFAMILY_B2 { "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_i", "~mdawson/run-name/run1/cycle/Task_j" ;
          label = SubFamily_B1
      }
  }
}

The subgraphs can be n layers deep so that needs to be handled programatically (cant be hard coded). At the moment the graphviz .dot code is being written as an array of strings that all gets added to - pushing new values onto the end. And then using the join method on the array to make one big string.

I have thought about giving each node a ranking in terms of how 'deep' it is in the hierarchy then ranking from most deep to least deep then looping through ... but this wont work because (as in the example above) you would miss out a lot of the graph

[oliver-sanders]

I think this is a problem that warrants recursion as it's tricky to unroll as an iterative loop.

Here's an idea of what that could look like (Python syntax):

• First, go through every task and create a dotcode entry for each (this is the bit that includes the <TABLE /> label).
• Then go through every family in inheritance order and build the nested subgraphs for each, inserting the task entries we have just built into the relevant subgraph when we get to it.
• Then do the '\n'.join(dotcode) bit.

from random import random

TASKS = {
    'foo': {
        'name': 'foo',
        'parent': 'FOO',
    },
    'FOO': {
        'name': 'FOO',
        'parent': 'root'
    },
    'bar': {
        'name': 'bar',
        'parent': 'BAR1',
    },
    'baz': {
        'name': 'baz',
        'parent': 'BAR2',
    },
    'BAR1': {
        'name': 'BAR1',
        'parent': 'BAR',
    },
    'BAR2': {
        'name': 'BAR2',
        'parent': 'BAR',
    },
    'root': {
        'name': 'root',
        'parent': None,
    },
}

TREE = {
    'root': {
        'FOO': None,
        'BAR': {
            'BAR1': None,
            'BAR2': None,
        },
    },
}

def add_subgraph(dotcode, pointer, graph_sections):
    for key, value in pointer.items():
        dotcode.append(
            f'subgraph cluster_{str(random())[2:]} {{'
            f'\nlabel = "{key}"'
        )

        if value:
            add_subgraph(dotcode, value, graph_sections)

        if key in graph_sections:
            dotcode.extend(graph_sections[key])

        dotcode.append('}')

    return dotcode

def get_dotcode(tasks):
    graph_sections = {}

    for task in tasks.values():
        parent = task['parent']
        if not parent:
            continue
        section = graph_sections.setdefault(parent, [])
        section.append(f'{task["name"]} [title="{task["name"]}"]')

    dotcode = ['digraph {']
    add_subgraph(dotcode, TREE['root'], graph_sections)
    return dotcode

for item in get_dotcode(TASKS):
    print(item)

digraph {

  subgraph cluster_23300787190407446 {
    label = "FOO"

    foo [title="foo"]
  }

  subgraph cluster_5025488657295563 {
    label = "BAR"

    subgraph cluster_2135762450670372 {
      label = "BAR1"

      bar [title="bar"]
    }

    subgraph cluster_4413670667138756 {
      label = "BAR2"

      baz [title="baz"]
    }

  BAR1 [title="BAR1"]
  BAR2 [title="BAR2"]
}

I haven't taken cycles into account in this solution, you'll need to add a for cycle in cycles loop at the top of this.

This solution will also add entries for families which have no tasks, so, you'll need some fancy logic for removing empty families, and any families that contain only empty families.