Sure! Since this is a user-facing issue, please post a brief design proposal on how you'd like to update the simulation file:

Thank you. I'm sorry I didn't come back to this immediately. I had to look at the test cases and made some draft changes to understand the moving parts first.

Changes we'd make to the json to add to the label for actvities

We'll add a new field to the activity description. I'm thinking we can label it activity_name or just name. Then update the following:

ActivityParser struct
ActivityDefinition struct
validated_activities
Test cases and lastly,
Use the activity "name" on logging.

Let me know if I'm missing something.

What we're going to do when we have no labels (use index in json?)

We can use the source and destination node aliases together as the label if the aliases were provided in json and not the node ID. Otherwise we use the index. For example, Alice to Bob activity can be "Alice->Bob" as the label, or "Activity 0" (where "0" is the index of the activity) as the label if the node ID was used.

How we'll handle validation: do we allow some activities with labels and some without?

I'm not sure what the best approach is. I'm thinking we can allow activities with or without labels, but if an activity doesn't have a label, then we can make up a label from their alias or activity index in json.

Let me know what your thoughts are. @carlaKC

Feature: Optional name for activity descriptions #127

Description

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions