-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
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
Force directed parameters seems to not have any impact #24
Comments
@EliotRagueneau Gravity has an effect only within a certain range. A better solution to nicely packing your disconnected components is to use the packing facility supported by the latest CiSE in the "development branch" (not yet released). Please see the "packComponents" option. Also, you should make sure that "randomize" is true (non-incremental layout, starts from random positions) when you're laying out your graph for the first time! Any succeeding layout where there are any incremental changes to the graph (new nodes/edges, removed nodes/edges), make sure "randomize" is false (incremental layout, respecting current positions). Component packing works nicely with both incremental and non-incremental layout. However, you need to make sure that you use this "cytoscape-layout-utilities" extension properly as explained in the develop branch README and as applied in the develop branch demo. |
Actually, after a bit more testing, I can tell you that the performance issue comes from the packComponents option with compound nodes:
Might be hard to optimise that if it is coming from "cytoscape-layout-utilities" :/ |
Thanks for the thorough testing.
|
Hi, Sorry if I didn't express myself correctly about the clustering, I meant that you allow to put in clusters options either the whole clustering as an array, or a function that provides the cluster id for each node. Well, this function does not work with packComponents, so currently I have to use the array version, and I have to calculate this array before using the layout. Here's the JSON used to build the data https://pastebin.com/dl/HRe94uJn, the clusters are based on the species (each species is a cluster). Hope this will help you |
Hello, Thank you for providing us the data, however, the link doesn't seem to be working. Might there be a typo? |
Is this one working ? https://pastebin.com/HRe94uJn |
Yes, actually both of the links work. In fact, it seems restricted here so VPN solved the problem. Sorry for that. |
No worries, and thank you for being that responsive! PS: You're doing a really great job, this layout is really awesome |
@EliotRagueneau So, if you turn packing on and provide a function for cluster info, you have these overlapping clusters. But if you turn packing on and provide the cluster info as arrays, this does not happen, correct? |
Hi, I just noticed another odd performace with packComponents: |
Overlap of components is due to layout utilities extension (see this issue). |
@EliotRagueneau Function for cluster info should be working now with packing in the develop branch. #37 |
@EliotRagueneau we just released version 2. |
Thanks a lot ! |
I am trying to use your layout because it seems absolutely wonderful, but the different parameters related to the force-directed par of the layout seems to have 0 effects on the end result.
This is problematic because I have networks really divided, so I would like to increase gravity so that they are more "concentrated".
Did I do something wrong while using it, or are they simply not working?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: