inline style syntax issues

[grivo]

I can create a relation without declaring participating elements

@startuml
:joe: --> (action)
@enduml

link

---

I can set some relation style inline

@startuml
:joe: -[#green]-> (action)
@enduml

link

or (this variant seems to me kind of illogical though - and it's better to deprecate it)

@startuml
:joe: --> (action) #green
@enduml

link

---

I can not set inline style for link and for participating elements other way than declaring elements first alongside with their style, and i can not set stereotype or mark participating element as business valuable other way than declaring this separately as well

code below is best inline solution, imo

@startuml
:joe:/ <<xxx>> #green -[#blue]-> (action)/ <<yyy>> #orange
@enduml

link

desired behaviour

@startuml
:joe:/ <<xxx>> #green
(action)/ <<yyy>> #orange
joe -[#blue]-> action
@enduml

link

---

moreover - i can not distnguish ordinary and business valueble actors / actions in terms of css styling - it may be useful for applying different style onto these elements without a need to apply separate stereotype

[arnaudroques]

With last snapshot, we have fixed:

@startuml
<style>
actor {
  BackGroundColor blue;
  business {
    BackGroundColor red;
  }
}
usecase {
  BackGroundColor lightBlue;
  business {
    BackGroundColor orange;
  }
}
</style>
:joe:
:joe2:/
(walk)
(run)/
@enduml

and

@startuml
:joe:/  --> (action) 
@enduml

---

However, we have an minor issue with your proposal:

@startuml
:joe:/ <<xxx>> #green -[#blue]-> (action)/ <<yyy>> #orange
@enduml

This is because the following syntax is actually working:

@startuml
<style>
.red {
	LineColor red;
}
</style>
:joe:  --> (action) <<red>>
@enduml

So the <<red>> stereotype applies here to the link itself, not to (action).

We may propose to slightly change the syntax and to move the stereotype on the link after the :

So to apply stereotype on the link, you would have to use :joe: --> (action) : <<red>>

Your modified example could be:

@startuml
:joe:/ <<xxx>> #green -[#blue]-> (action)/ <<yyy>> #orange : some message <<zzz>>
@enduml

where <<xxx>> applies on joe, <<yyy>> applies on action and <<zzz>> applies on the link itself.

This would slightly break existing diagrams that put stereotype on link, though.
What do you think about it?

[grivo]

@arnaudroques

With last snapshot, we have fixed:

that's exactly what i want, thanks!

---

:joe:/ <> #green -[#blue]-> (action)/ <> #orange : some message <>

where <> applies on joe, <> applies on action and <> applies on the link itself.
This would slightly break existing diagrams that put stereotype on link, though.
What do you think about it?

i'd rather say sort of...

as for compatibility - yet we may assume some workaround (hereafter term styles includes possible stereotypes list as well)

• these variants applly style on relation only
  • :joe:/ -d-> (action)/ <<zzz, uuu, iii>> #blue : some message - applicable for a relation that does not have any inline styles but it's own inline style only (as it is for now)
  • :joe:/ -d[<<zzz, uuu, iii>> #blue]-> (action)/ : some message - applicable for a relation that may have multiple inline styles declared
• these variants apply style on actor
  • :joe:/ <<xxx, qqq, ooo>> #green - applicable for an actor that does not have any inline styles but it's own inline style only or for an actor declaration apart of relation (as it is for now)
  • :joe:/ [<<xxx, qqq, ooo>> #green] - applicable for an actor that may have multiple inline styles declared
• these variants apply style on action
  • (action)/ <<yyy, hhh, mmm>> #orange - applicable for an action that does not have any inline styles but it's own inline style only or for an action declaration apart of relation (as it is for now)
  • (action)/ [<<yyy, hhh, mmm>> #orange] - applicable for an action that may have multiple inline styles declared
• these variants apply style on action
• these examples may apply multiple inline style on actor, relation and action same time
  • :joe:/ [<<xxx, qqq, ooo>> #green] -d[<<zzz, uuu, iii>> #blue]-> (action)/ [<<yyy, hhh, mmm>> #orange] : some message - actor, relation and action
  • :joe:/ [<<xxx, qqq, ooo>> #green] -d-> (action)/ [<<yyy, hhh, mmm>> #orange] : some message - actor and action
  • :joe:/ [<<xxx, qqq, ooo>> #green] -d[<<zzz, uuu, iii>> #blue]-> (action)/ : some message - actor and relation
  • :joe:/ -d[<<zzz, uuu, iii>> #blue]-> (action)/ [<<yyy, hhh, mmm>> #orange] : some message - relation and action

literally - optional square brackets may solve style / stereotype clash issues indeed

[evantill]

Maybe we can close this issue and follow the discussion on gh discussions ?

[grivo]

@evantill - do you want me to do this?

what are the chances for this proposal to be implemented then? because current solution with inline syntax seems to be bit incomplete