Bug: Multiple edges between same nodes not shown
See original GitHub issueFor a graph with edges A,B, weight=15 B,A, weight=10
Only the first edge object is retained in the add_edges(self, edges, directed=False)
method, which is wrong behaviour.
This add_edges
method is used in add_graph_from_networkx
method, which leads to deletion of certain edges from networkx graph.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Comments:20 (8 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
[Bug] EdgeDepthFirstSearchAlgorithm does not find multiple ...
For this graph we would like to know all possible paths between two nodes. So for the example below the resulting paths between...
Read more >Only one edge is going to be visualized if two nodes have ...
I think original bug – need for multiple edges is specific and unambiguous. Multiple connections between same two nodes should be visualized ...
Read more >GraphViz, grouping multiple edges between the same nodes ...
GraphViz, grouping multiple edges between the same nodes but with different labels. Save this question. Show activity on this post. This will create...
Read more >Label multiple edges between same vertices
Update 3: Styling and labeling edges individually can now be more conveniently done using new-in-version-12.1 function EdgeTaggedGraph :
Read more >Multiple edges with the same source and destination appear ...
Currently, GSQL does not support multiple edge instances that share the same pair of source and target vertex pair.
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
Initial work on support for multiple edges https://github.com/QuantStack/ipycytoscape/pull/146
IMO it should be 3, and that’s why I raised the idea of having a clear graph method whenever
add_graph_from_networkx
is called. This is an API design decision ifadd_graph_from_networkx
is supposed to be used successively or not, I feel we should relegate the graph manipulation to functions likeadd_node
,add_edge
, we shouldn’t useadd_graph_from_networkx
to manipulate the graph object. But again this is just my opinion so ¯\(ツ)/¯Figure 1 becomes a MultiGraph it’s not a Graph anymore, Figure 2 is what is happening right now.
And currently the way code is structured, ipycytoscape doesn’t support MultiGraphs, only Graph and Directed Graphs, we should definitely add support for MultiGraphs too, and be more explicit about it.
NOTE: I use the terms MultiGraph and Graph the way NetworkX defines it.