问题

我一直在努力弄清楚如何让这张图看起来符合我的喜好。这是我目前为止最接近的一次：

[][1]

它是通过这段代码实现的：

```
@startuml
:A;
split;
-> A 到 B;
:B;
-> B 到 E;
:E;
-> E 到 G;
split again;
-> A 到 C;
:C;
-> C 到 D;
:D;
-> D 到 F;
:F;
-> F 到 G;
end split;
:G;
@enduml
```

但是缺少了一个从 C 到 F 的箭头，但是我无论如何也搞不明白如何在新的语法中制作它。

我曾经使用旧的语法做过类似的事情，就像这样：

```
@startuml
"A" -left->["A 到 B"] "B"
"A" -right->["A 到 C"] "C"
"B"-->[ "B 到 E"] "E"
"C"-->[ "C 到 D"] "D"
"D"-->[ "D 到 F"] "F"
"C"-->[ "C 到 F"] "F"
"F"-->[ "F 到 G"]"G"
"E"-->[ "E 到 G"] "G"
@enduml
```

这导致了这张图片：

[][2]

但是这种方法有它的缺点，它是旧的语法，而我个人认为新的语法产生的“矩形”外观比旧语法的曲线更容易阅读。

所以，如何在新的语法中从 C 到 F 添加箭头呢？有些问题，比如《如何在PlantUML UML活动图中引用先前的活动》 已经让我接近了答案，但它们似乎并不完全是我所寻找的。我还研究了graphViz，但是我无法弄清楚如何产生与新的PlantUML语法给我带来的干净方正外观相同的效果，所以这也是失败的。所以，能帮忙吗？

编辑：我注意到我的标签中有错误，我现在已经修复了它，并且在逻辑连接方面，现在两个图像应该是等价的。我还添加了红色箭头和标签，以更清晰地显示我想要实现的内容。感谢所有表达困惑的人，现在情况应该更清晰了。

@startuml
:A;
split;
  -> A to B;
  :B;
  -> B to E;
  :E;
  -> E to G;
split again;
  -> A to C;
  :C;
  ->C to D;
  :D;
  ->D to F;
  :F;
  ->F to G;
end split;
:G;
@enduml

@startuml
"A" -left->["A to B"] "B"
"A" -right->["A to C"] "C"
"B"-->["B to E"] "E"
"C"-->["C to D"] "D"
"D"-->["D to F"] "F"
"C"-->["C to F"] "F"
"F"-->["F to G"]"G"
"E"-->["E to G"] "G"
@enduml

答案1

得分: 1

在活动图中，您可以使用`split`来表示绕过。但是，您不能这样做，因为在流程中没有额外的活动绕过该活动。所以，这看起来像是一种条件流。活动图有一种语法（使用菱形节点），所以它看起来像这样：

```plantuml
@startuml diagram name
:A;
split;
  -> A 到 B;
  :B;
  -> B 到 E;
  :E;
  -> E 到 G;
split again;
  -> A 到 C;
  :C;
    if (条件？) then
    :D;
    endif
  :F;
  ->F 到 G;
end split;
:G;
@enduml

如果您只是想要一个图表，那么状态图可能更好（这是您的第二个例子，我承认我不理解绕过--它与第一个例子不同）。
无论如何，通常删除left和right的规格会使布局更好。我总是从那个开始。这是您的第二个例子（更好吗？）没有那些：

@startuml
"A"-->[ "A 到 B" ] "B"
"A"-->[ "A 到 C" ] "C"
"B"-->[ "B 到 E" ] "E"
"C"-->[ "C 到 D" ] "D"
"D"-->[ "D 到 F" ] "F"
"C"-->[ "C 到 F" ] "F"
"F"-->[ "F 到 G" ] "G"
"E"-->[ "E 到 G" ] "G"
@enduml

<details>
<summary>英文:</summary>

In an activity diagram, you can show a bypass by using `split`. However, you can&#39;t because there&#39;s no extra activity on the flow that bypasses the activity. So, that seems like a conditional flow. Activity diagrams have a syntax (with diamond nodes) so this is how it looks:

```plantuml
@startuml diagram name
:A;
split;
  -&gt; A to B;
  :B;
  -&gt; B to E;
  :E;
  -&gt; E to G;
split again;
  -&gt; A to C;
  :C;
    if (condition?) then
    :D;
    endif
  :F;
  -&gt;F to G;
end split;
:G;
@enduml

If you're just trying to get a graph, then maybe a state diagram is better (it's your second example, which I admit I don't understand the bypass -- it's not the same as the first example).
Anyway, removing the left and right specifications usually makes for a better layout. I always start with that. Here's your second example (is it better?) without those:

@startuml
"A"-->["A to B"] "B"
"A"-->["A to C"] "C"
"B"-->["B to E"] "E"
"C"-->["C to D"] "D"
"D"-->["D to F"] "F"
"C"-->["C to F"] "F"
"F"-->["F to G"] "G"
"E"-->["E to G"] "G"
@enduml