Sorry if this has been raised already (I searched but couldn’t find anything), but I have a couple of queries about the logic behind how the input ports of metanodes are positioned. Every time I create a metanode with two inputs, the first thing I do is switch around the order of the two ports so that the top port flows into the uppermost node within the metanode. By default, and seemingly without fail, the metanode is configured so that the reverse is true. Is this by accident or design? Obviously this does not affect the functioning of the metanode, but it is not ideal for keeping things visually clear.
My second query relates specifically to the most recent update (4.1). All of a sudden, the input ports seem to be positioned lower than they were before, which again leads to less optimal visual layouts. Is this an unintended side-effect resulting from some other change in the new version, or something that has been changed on purpose?
regarding your first question, no, there is no real logic behind. It follows an internal order and is supposed to be deterministic. Sorry for not having a more clear answer here.
Regarding the positioning of input ports - there were no changes on that and I was also not able to see any changes between previous versions and 4.1. Do you eventually have a screenshot that shows what you mean here? That would help.
Thanks @Martyna. I don’t know about the experience of other users, but I wonder if the internal order of the input ports should be reversed, as it consistently produces the opposite of what I would think is the desired behaviour.
Looking more closely at the vertical position of the ports, I see that they are still in the centre, but I think the vertical grey bar that holds the ports has gotten bigger. So the centre of the bar is now further down. I have noticed also that the default position of the bar holding the output ports has also moved further to the right. So perhaps there has been a decision to increase the default amount of space provided in a metanode.
I’m sure this decision has been taken with some use case in mind, but for me both of these changes are a real shame, because my whole approach to metanodes is to lay them out so that they fit on a single screen, with no need for scrolling down or right to see all of the contents. This makes reviewing, exploring and executing the workflow much more efficient in many cases. Now all of my metanodes in all of my workflows are laid out in ways that I never wanted.
Perhaps I am an atypical user. But perhaps there is also a case to allow the user to set or choose between default dimensions for the internal space of metanodes.
Just merged the fix for the issue and it will be available in 4.1.1.
Thanks for reporting this!
This topic was automatically closed 182 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.