Add optional tweak per node with name placeholder

[kvid]

Implements feature suggested in #349

[kvid]

See my newly extended #270 (comment) for a use case with example YAML input for this PR.

[martinrieder]

#349 (comment)

Great to see this implemented! Now I understand how you intended to do that search & replace, though I still do not understand what the placeholder would be needed for. I think that it might make sense to have a prefix to an auto-generated designator though... What is the advantage of having a user-defined ID here?

I also realized that the templates and examples do not contain any tweaks. The automated checks would only confirm that this PR does not break any of them.

[martinrieder]

I wrote:

I also realized that the templates and examples do not contain any tweaks. The automated checks would only confirm that this PR does not break any of them.

@kvid :
Would it make sense to include some additional examples for these tweaks with the PR, i.e. a simplified version of #325?
In case that you want to leave them undocumented (refer to Graphviz docs), should there be an additional testing folder for the GH actions to capture any issues?

Taking the latter thought a bit further, I come to think of it as regression testing for solved issues... Quite a bit of work to implement though.

[kvid]

@martinrieder wrote:

[...]

I also realized that the templates and examples do not contain any tweaks. The automated checks would only confirm that this PR does not break any of them.

True

@kvid : Would it make sense to include some additional examples for these tweaks with the PR, i.e. a simplified version of #325?

It would perhaps be nice with an example, but bear in mind that tweaks are mainly needed for workarounds when the ordinary functionality is not sufficient or contains errors, or to test possible new features. Hopefully, such needs will be resolved by extending the ordinary functionality in the future.

In case that you want to leave them undocumented (refer to Graphviz docs),

Creating tweaks does require knowledge of the Graphviz syntax, and that is a too large subject to cover in the WireViz documentation, so referring to Graphviz docs is needed.

should there be an additional testing folder for the GH actions to capture any issues?

#251 will add test folders that might be what you seek.

Taking the latter thought a bit further, I come to think of it as regression testing for solved issues... Quite a bit of work to implement though.

See #63

[martinrieder]

In case that you want to leave them undocumented (refer to Graphviz docs),

Creating tweaks does require knowledge of the Graphviz syntax, and that is a too large subject to cover in the WireViz documentation, so referring to Graphviz docs is needed.

I would put some notes into syntax.md and amend those to my PR #386 then. We have seen a few requests about clustering. That is something that I would still like to add, besides the hint about the image attributes.

[Crestless8]

Being able to do an invisible connector and using autogenerate would be greatly appreciated. The only way it currently works is to enumerate each virtual connector explicitly which is clunky and adds a lot of code.