#27 Add deployment and dynamic diagrams support

[kirchsth]

I'm extending the Structurizr.Net with an new PlantUML writer with dynamic and deployment view support. During that I added the 2 diagrams definitions. If you want you could pull it.
I added the definitions, samples and updated the readme.

**please update all raw references to the correct one during merge from
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kirchsth/C4-PlantUML/master/...
to
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/RicardoNiepel/C4-PlantUML/release/1-0/... ***

[adrianvlupu]

Hi,

While I think it's a good idea to add deployment elements, I don't really agree with the implementation.
The only difference between a Deployment_Node and a general Boundary is the solid border and the black font color.
The ContainerInstance should just be a Container.
This way, the diagrams would better resemble the ones in the C4Model docs.

A better implementation would be to add a new skinparam

skinparam rectangle<<node>> {
    Shadowing false
    StereotypeFontSize 0
    FontColor #000000
    BorderColor #000000
    BorderStyle solid
}

and new Node element

!define Node(e_alias, e_label, e_type) rectangle "==e_label\n<size:TECHN_FONT_SIZE>[e_type]</size>" <<node>> as e_alias

The C4_Dynamic.puml seems to serve no purpose. I think new puml files should be added only if they add new elements.

Also, don't forget to update C4.code-snippets with the new elements.

[kirchsth]

My main intention was to extend structurizr/dotnet with a new C4PlantUmlWriter which creates similar diagrams like structurizr itself (the test_writeBigBankPlcWorkspace() test produces the different diagrams – if you want to see them replace the 2 "" with one ") and with my “C4-PlantUML” merge request I only want to synchronize the generated diagrams.

at DeploymentNode, ContainerInstance) all terms are already used in the structurizr model therefore I “reused” them as Deployment_Node and ContainerInstance (I cannot use container, because term container is already used and has a different meaning in the model).

at DeploymentNode, Boundary) the C4 diagrams use already 3 different boundaries and a node is not a boundary. Additional structurizr uses round corners in the diagrams and I want to produce the same layout (e.g. round corners) too. And a container is not an instance therefore I added the round corners to the instances too.
(colors and shadows are a matter of taste but none of the boundary colors was black in the other diagrams)

at Deployment_Node) I reused only the same pattern like all boundary Container_Boundary, Enterprise_Boundary ... but Node itself is fine too

at C4_Dynamic.puml) basically you are right, but I want to decouple the writer and C4-diagram definitions and introduced the C4_Dynamic.puml too that each diagram type has its own *puml file (e.g. it could be that different legends are introduced,…)

at C4.code-snippets) can you extend it? I generate the diagrams with structurizr/dotnet and use no code snippets

[kirchsth]

@adrianvlupu can you check my changes in my branch before I make a new pull request? C4.code-snippets are in work. I will finish it as soon your check is ok.

[kirchsth]

Hi @adrianvlupu, @RicardoNiepel all my changes are in:

• Deployment.puml has a new Node,
• Dynamic.puml has a new Interact and Interact2 == Rel with automatic numbering,
• Updated C4 code snippets
• fix missing LAYOUT_WITH_LEGEND... () in images and documentation

I hope you like it, I used the changes already in the new structurizr-C4PlantUmlWriter

Best regards
Helmut

PS.: It still contains links to my git repository, please update/remove them as soon you accept my changes

[adrianvlupu]

Hi @kirchsth,

I like how you handled the $index for the dynamic diagrams. I took your example of both deployment and dynamic diagrams and added them to my repository with some changes.

Because I updated my version a while back to use plantuml 1.2019.6, I couldn't merge your version directly. I also changed Interact and Interact2 to Rel (override) and RelIndex just for the sake of simplicity.

👍 Just wanted to thank you for the contribution and I wish you a happy holiday season 🎄

[surmansk]

What is needed to merge this pull request? If nothing, could we merge this branch as soon as possible?

[ab0ris]

Would be really great to see this merged.

[prathik]

@RicardoNiepel could we get this merged, feature is useful

[NJ-Brad]

There were several changes required, in order to work with the new preprocessor. I have made the required changes, and incorporated many of the pull requests into my fork of this great project. https://github.com/NJ-Brad/C4-PlantUML I am working on several projects and wanted to utilize these improvements.

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[kirchsth]

@adrianvlupu merged my changes already via a different PR, therefore I close my PR