Interactive Version inside ILSpy?

[christophwille]

In preparation for our ILSpy developer days in Vienna I happened across your repository (we have Mermaid diagrams on our topics list).

Would it be possible to turn your solution into an "interactive" variant inside of ILSpy? By that I mean using our existing tree and maybe a WebView2 component in a view window. Or is the processing too heavy for that?

[h0lg]

Hey @christophwille, that's good news, netAmermaid was trying to bridge that gap exactly :)

If I understand you correctly, you want to use the original ILSpy tree for type selection and then render the selected types and their relations using mermaid in a WebView.

I think you could get somewhere by

• feeding the tree selection into netAmermaid as described using the existing include/exclude filters
• customizing the template.html, script.js and styles.css to match your needs (e.g. drop the type filter and render all pre-filtered types)
• redirecting the output of the generated HTML to your WebView somehow (probably requires changing the netAmermaid API)

Concerning the JSON (see ClassDiagrammer.cs) format the HTML diagrammer factory creates:

• I took liberties with the mermaid syntax e.g. when it comes to the display of generic types, which were not supported by mermaid at the time of writing - and that stuff leaks into the JSON.
• The format is neither clean mermaid syntax nor clean ILSpy info, but some hybrid that's easy to digest for the default HTML diagrammer while supporting its type selection, filtering and display capabilities.
• The conversion into mermaid syntax happens mostly in the HTML diagrammer's script.js in mermaidExtensions.processTypes, with postProcess injecting the XML doco titles. See the top-level render function to see the orchestration.

If you have further questions, let me know!

[christophwille]

I had a closer look at your solution during our event - and I noticed that it could be "lift & shifted" into our ILSpyX project where it can be used by ilspycmd (automation) as well as ILSpy (interactive). Would that be something you'd be willing to entertain?

For the interactive bits - I was looking at super-lightweight solution as well using eg https://github.com/samsmithnz/MermaidDotNet to only render a slim diagram at first (along the lines of dotpeek's dependency graph). Maybe somewhere drawing the line between heavy preprocessing and quick interactive rendering.

[h0lg]

I had a closer look at your solution during our event - and I noticed that it could be "lift & shifted" into our ILSpyX project where it can be used by ilspycmd (automation) as well as ILSpy (interactive). Would that be something you'd be willing to entertain?

Sounds good to me. More eyes and hands on it!

For the interactive bits - I was looking at super-lightweight solution as well using eg https://github.com/samsmithnz/MermaidDotNet to only render a slim diagram at first (along the lines of dotpeek's dependency graph). Maybe somewhere drawing the line between heavy preprocessing and quick interactive rendering.

I think I understand where you're going. The netAmermaid CLI is designed as a factory that takes a pre-selection of types and bakes their info into a HTML diagrammer for the final selection to happen there. That final step is not necessary if ILSpy does the selecting. You could generate mermaid syntax directly instead of going through a meta-model.

At that point the netAmermaid CLI may truly not be what you want - unless you still like the shape of the ClassDiagrammer.cs output model. An overload of ClassDiagrammerFactory.BuildModel() that takes a collection of ICSharpCode.Decompiler.TypeSystem.ITypeDefinition is cheap. With that you could directly generate mermaid syntax from the output model in C# (effectively re-creating mermaidExtensions.processTypes from script.js) without the need for much JavaScript other than click handlers for navigation in the HTML for the WebView.

Not sure whether you want to take the performance hit of having to re-generate the HTML and reload the WebView on every interaction though. Maybe you'd want to "buffer" some info by pre-processing (e.g. all types in the namespaces of selected types or include relations of the first degree) so that the UI updates immediately while you re-generate the next "buffered" model in the backgound if necessary?

[christophwille]

I really want to go down two routes:

• "Export as diagram" - basically the current feature set of netAmermaid as-is but inside ilspycmd and ILSpy (much like "Save Code" on the assembly node today)
• "Show dependency graph" - a first step into the interactive minimal direction that builds out the infra inside ILSpy for more future diagrams.

So maybe something along those lines

• ILSpyX/Diagrams being the new home
• ./html turned into a node-only-tooling story
• Adapting/reusing ilspycmd command line options
• New ILSpy "Export as diagram" feature
• Delivering the minified mermaid.js (somehow) with ILSpy - to not rely on CDNs (a lot security people use ILSpy without network connectivity or would like to keep their IPs from CDN logs). A first iteration could do without this though.

That would bring netAmermaid into ILSpy for the first bullet item from the top list. However, if that happens, is it still fruitful to keep netAmermaid standalone? (inside ILSpy it would get way more exposure, but for the downside of you having your own repository) Going NuGet is problematic because you depend on ics.Decompiler which is part of ILSpyX. So it really boils down to: do you want netAmermaid to join ILSpy?

[h0lg]

I really want to go down two routes

I see - for the first option using or merging netAmermaid makes complete sense.

As I've said, merging it into ILSpy sounds good to me. Continuing it as a stand-alone project for vanity makes little sense, as long as the current capabilities of the diagrammer factory CLI get transferred or replaced by ilspycmd:

• filtering types (because reality is messy)
• using XML docs for diagram annotation (because I find diagrams benefit hugely from them)
• stripping namespaces from XML docs and/or display types (to reduce noise for readability)
• branding and customizing the generated diagrammers (so they can be shipped with builds as documentation)

[christophwille]

So we need to merge the existing ilspycmd CLI options with those of netAmermaid in a sensible manner (no duplication, no naming inconsistencies). The existing ilspycmd ones:

https://github.com/icsharpcode/ILSpy/blob/master/ICSharpCode.ILSpyCmd/README.md

We already have

• an assembly argument (matching --assembly)
• --outputdir (matching --output-folder)

And there the easy matches stop, because --type doesn't match the expectations of --include.

We need

• a parameter for telling ilspycmd "Please generated diagrams instead of source code". --generate-diagrams? (-gendiag) to align with --generate-pdb.
• All other options from netAmermaid. I'd suggest not providing shorthands for those like we do with --disable-updatecheck. But maybe use a common prefix to make sure everybody understands "oh, those are for diagrams" (consistency). How about --diagrams-include --diagrams-exclude et cetera?

Would you be willing to prepare the PR? (vanity) If so, here are a few more pointers in addition to those from previous comments:

• Let's use the CDN that mermaid proposes on their README (jsdelivr)
• Documentation - parts like the cmd line parameters will move to ilspycmd README, but all other things... the technical background (how it works, do steal parts of this thread from your explanations) maybe as an excluded README in the ILSpyX/Diagrams folder, the "end user" docs as a Wiki page?
• The UI version ("Save Project" lookalike) - maybe start out with only really copying that and ignoring all other options (like the default cmd line you show in the netAmermaid README)

Does that sound like a plan?

[h0lg]

Would you be willing to prepare the PR?

Absolutely. Most of what you say sounds reasonable and good to me. I do have a few questions and remarks:

the technical background (how it works, do steal parts of this thread from your explanations) maybe as an excluded README in the ILSpyX/Diagrams folder

What do you mean by "excluded"? Excluded from where or what?

the "end user" docs as a Wiki page

Do you mean the HTML diagrammer doco? And do you suggest moving the markdown into a github wiki page? If so, will it be in source control? If not, wouldn't it be better to keep it in source control to make it easier to keep the doco in sync?

The UI version ("Save Project" lookalike) - maybe start out with only really copying that and ignoring all other options (like the default cmd line you show in the netAmermaid README)

I think I understand what you mean. Please confirm or correct me:
In the ILSpy UI, add an assembly tree context menu entry for generating a HTML diagrammer from the selected assembly similar to the existing one "🖫 Save Code...".
In the first version, leave out advanced options like type selection, i.e. generate a diagrammer for all types in the assembly.

[christophwille]

Would you be willing to prepare the PR?
the technical background (how it works, do steal parts of this thread from your explanations) maybe as an excluded README in the ILSpyX/Diagrams folder

What do you mean by "excluded"? Excluded from where or what?

File visible in Solution Explorer, but not copied to output. That's what I meant by excluded (from build).

the "end user" docs as a Wiki page

Do you mean the HTML diagrammer doco? And do you suggest moving the markdown into a github wiki page? If so, will it be in source control? If not, wouldn't it be better to keep it in source control to make it easier to keep the doco in sync?

Wiki on GH is source-controlled https://docs.github.com/en/communities/documenting-your-project-with-wikis/viewing-a-wikis-history-of-changes - reason for choosing this is mostly being that we already have end-user-facing docs in that location. It is a bit easier to maintain as well and doesn't pollute git history with non-code changes.

The UI version ("Save Project" lookalike) - maybe start out with only really copying that and ignoring all other options (like the default cmd line you show in the netAmermaid README)

I think I understand what you mean. Please confirm or correct me: In the ILSpy UI, add an assembly tree context menu entry for generating a HTML diagrammer from the selected assembly similar to the existing one "🖫 Save Code...". In the first version, leave out advanced options like type selection, i.e. generate a diagrammer for all types in the assembly.

Exactly. Our Save code also doesn't sport all the options ilspycmd has - the UI should be easily accessible features, and "pro" is either ilspycmd or if demand is there (ie people opening issues) that we add a "pro" UI as well.

Btw, we also have https://github.com/icsharpcode/ILSpy/tree/gh-pages - ilspy.net. Now, index.md does redirect intentionally, but eg we could host some samples for say AvalonEdit or SharpZipLib there to show off the diagramming capabilities (as a future PR to that branch).

[h0lg]

Got it - thanks for elaborating and some fair points.

Concerning something you wrote earlier:

./html turned into a node-only-tooling story

What do you mean by this? For context: At the moment, the netAmermaid solution contains two projects: A C# Console project building the diagrammer factory, and a Node JS project for developing the diagrammer. But the latter one only really uses NPM to pull in development resources - namely eslint for the script and gulp for transpiling the .less into CSS. This is where I could also pull in mermaid.js to get rid of the CDN as you mentioned. What would you like me to change about that setup?

[christophwille]

./html turned into a node-only-tooling story

What do you mean by this? For context: At the moment, the netAmermaid solution contains two projects: A C# Console project building the diagrammer factory, and a Node JS project for developing the diagrammer. But the latter one only really uses NPM to pull in development resources - namely eslint for the script and gulp for transpiling the .less into CSS. This is where I could also pull in mermaid.js to get rid of the CDN as you mentioned. What would you like me to change about that setup?

I meant specifically to get rid of https://github.com/h0lg/netAmermaid/blob/main/html/html.njsproj and instead only use node to do the necessary LESS-to-CSS conversion and whatever else would be necessary - and recommend VS Code for editing those files (JS is way better served by VS Code than VS). Yes, I am voting for two tools - VS only including the (commited) output of the VS Code editing of ./html.

Please add a .gitignore https://www.toptal.com/developers/gitignore/api/node in ./html - do not modify the root one.

[h0lg]

I understand, thanks. And you're right, the JS tooling is better in VSCode.

Let's think about what that means for developing the HTML app: In order to test and debug the HTML template, script and styles, you'll need to run them through ilspycmd to generate a diagrammer. And not any build, but one that uses the updated template and resources. So for a smooth DevEx and to replace the post-build event I used for this in VS, the VSCode node.js project would need a run script that looks a bit like this:

1. transpile the .less into .css
2. either
   2.a build ilspycmd using the dotnet CLI (to have a build using up-to date resources) or
   2.b copy the up-to-date resources to where the ilspycmd build used in the next step picks them up
3. call ilspycmd to generate a diagrammer
4. open that diagrammer in a browser

2.a would be the cleaner, but slower solution.
2.b would mean "modifying" e.g. the resources in the ilspycmd Debug/html build output, but make rebuilding it unnecessary - which would be a lot quicker.

Let me know what you think.

[christophwille]

What-if we invert the DevEx? Like having generated data (not checked in, obviously) sitting next to the html/css/js? So bascially the C# code would not need to run once you have a test data set, and you can keep iterating on the html/css/js, having a nice inner loop.

[h0lg]

What-if we invert the DevEx? Like having generated data (not checked in, obviously) sitting next to the html/css/js? So bascially the C# code would not need to run once you have a test data set, and you can keep iterating on the html/css/js, having a nice inner loop.

I have thought about your idea for a bit and yes, it can be done, but maybe not as easily as you imagine. The reason for that boils down to the HTTP spec that prevents you from referencing .json files from .html file opened from the file:// system because Cross origin requests are only supported for HTTP.

So if you you want the diagrammer to keep working from the file system, you have to bake the JSON into the document. That means having a pure node.js inner loop as you describe, would require two rather smelly pieces of code:

1. Some C# code and/or config to create the test data (which is not checked in) , which half-runs the ilspycmd to create a diagrammer, but then redirects the model JSON output to file - an execution path which is otherwise useless (because of above CORS restriction). ilspycmd would need an extra parameter, switch, commented or conditional code for that.
2. Some simplified node.js version of the C# code that bakes the JSON into the HTML template and saves it as a diagrammer - and that has to stay in sync with the original to some degree.

I don't know about you, but the localized weirdness of copying the HTML template, script.js and styles.css over to the ilspycommand Debug/html output folder and then running that build from node.js against e.g. itself to create a diagrammer looks a lot more attractive right now.

[christophwille]

I have used https://www.npmjs.com/package/http-server in the past to get around the local files problem in node. Wouldn't something like "If I don't have json in the html, look at a defined file outside?"

Edit: to clarify - I meant to use http-server for DevEx, not runtime. And the intelligent switch "json in html, json in separate file" would allow that as well as a future option for users to opt between inline json and external file for publishing to Web or local consumption via https://www.nuget.org/packages/dotnet-serve/

[h0lg]

I don't know.

Unless you are planning to skip the diagrammer generation of an HTML template in the dev pipeline altogether (which you could do and look at template.html directly in a browser I guess?), introducing a HTTP server to get around the CORS issue introduces unnecessary complexity IMO.
When the diagrammer is generated from the HTML template, you might as well bake in the JSON, in C# or node.js . There is little benefit even for a web version to have the JSON in a separate file. Yes, you could lazy-load it and may get a faster initial page load - but you won't be able to do anything until the JSON is loaded anyway.
And that web build won't work locally without a HTTP server. Do you really want to open that can of future bug reports? I'd keep it simple. We're talking about static JSON data here.

If I understand your idea correctly, it requires:

• some switch of the diagrammer factory to generate the model into a separate model.json
• a node.js script generateDevModel, run if you want to develop the diagrammer:
  • run ilspycommand to generate a model.json (into an output folder) using above switch
  • copy that model.json into the html folder
• a node.js script runDevDiagrammer, aka. inner loop, run when changing the diagrammer source:
  • transpile the .less into .css
  • generate the diagrammer (or don't) and bake in the model.json (or don't) and spin up a HTTP server (if you didn't bake in the model.json)
  • open the generated diagrammer (or the template.html) in a browser

Generating a diagrammer in node.js from pre-generated JSON is probably a bit quicker than running ilspycommand on a sample target assembly. But that's the only benefit to that solution I can think of.

At face value, it looks more complex with more moving parts and a new external dependency - and I can think of some other reasons you might not want to go there:

• if you generate a diagrammer, you'd have to keep a node.js substitute of the production code in sync
• you'd test that, not the production generation. means less trust in the production code and its results
• you risk developing on stale test data (e.g. with an outdated schema)

I guess you could split the C# diagrammer generation into

1. generating a model.json from an assembly and
2. generating a diagrammer from a model.json and a template.html

which could at least spare you the duplicated node.js diagrammer creation.

But I still don't know, the pipeline I've outlined above seems a lot simpler (i.e. more robust) and as I've pointed out, I don't see a good reason for the layover at JSON airport other than gaining a few seconds in DevEx. If I'm missing something, please point it out to me.

[christophwille]

The main goal is to make the JS/HTML/CSS dev loop independent from running ilspycmd. Here's the idea again:

You'd run ilspycmd once to get a model.json. And that is copied into the ./html folder. And then the Web Dev can iterate on the JS/HTML/CSS without ever calling ilspycmd again.

The idea is to modify template.html in a way that: if there is no inline json, go looking for a model.json. And that's it.