Skip to content

docs(blueprint-03): fix diagram alignment (topology -> LR, threats -> single subgraph)#50

Merged
pallakatos merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/blueprint03-align
Apr 27, 2026
Merged

docs(blueprint-03): fix diagram alignment (topology -> LR, threats -> single subgraph)#50
pallakatos merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/blueprint03-align

Conversation

@pallakatos

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Tiny follow-up to #49: the Blueprint 03 page still looked misaligned relative to the rest of the set. Two specific causes, both addressed here.

  1. Topology — switched from TB to LR. Customers now sit on the left, provider AKS on the right; the back-arrows from customer laptops into the App Gateway no longer cross the AKS subgraph vertically.
  2. Hardware-isolated sandbox — the three ATK adversary nodes were floating at root level (no parent subgraph), which made mermaid lay them out unpredictably. Wrapped them in a single Threats subgraph and changed the inner Pod direction from LR to TB so openclaw + router stack vertically (matches 01/02/04 convention). ATK edges are now directed (-.->) for unambiguous threat-arrow direction.

Pure layout / alignment fix — no content, palette, or classDef changes.

Two layout problems on the Blueprint 03 page caused the diagrams to look
misaligned vs the rest of the blueprints set:

1. Topology diagram (TB): customer subgraphs sat at root level *below* the
   provider AKS subgraph, so arrows from customer laptops back up into the
   AKS App Gateway in the middle of the provider box looked like
   spaghetti. Switched to flowchart LR so customers sit on the left,
   provider AKS on the right, and the customer arrows flow naturally
   left-to-right into the App Gateway.

2. Hardware-isolated sandbox diagram (TB): three ATK adversary nodes were
   floating at root level alongside the Host and Attest subgraphs, which
   made mermaid spread them awkwardly across the rendered area. Wrapped
   them in a single 'Threats' subgraph at the top of the diagram and
   converted the Pod direction from LR to TB so openclaw and router stack
   vertically (matching the layout convention used in blueprints 01/02/04).
   ATK -> defended-element edges changed from undirected (-.-) to directed
   (-.->) so the threat arrow direction is unambiguous.

Pure layout / alignment fix. Same content, same colour palette, same
classDefs, same theme directive.

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
@pallakatos
pallakatos merged commit 8b4e131 into main Apr 27, 2026
22 checks passed
@pallakatos
pallakatos deleted the docs/blueprint03-align branch April 27, 2026 13:28
pallakatos added a commit that referenced this pull request May 12, 2026
Two layout problems on the Blueprint 03 page caused the diagrams to look
misaligned vs the rest of the blueprints set:

1. Topology diagram (TB): customer subgraphs sat at root level *below* the
   provider AKS subgraph, so arrows from customer laptops back up into the
   AKS App Gateway in the middle of the provider box looked like
   spaghetti. Switched to flowchart LR so customers sit on the left,
   provider AKS on the right, and the customer arrows flow naturally
   left-to-right into the App Gateway.

2. Hardware-isolated sandbox diagram (TB): three ATK adversary nodes were
   floating at root level alongside the Host and Attest subgraphs, which
   made mermaid spread them awkwardly across the rendered area. Wrapped
   them in a single 'Threats' subgraph at the top of the diagram and
   converted the Pod direction from LR to TB so openclaw and router stack
   vertically (matching the layout convention used in blueprints 01/02/04).
   ATK -> defended-element edges changed from undirected (-.-) to directed
   (-.->) so the threat arrow direction is unambiguous.

Pure layout / alignment fix. Same content, same colour palette, same
classDefs, same theme directive.

Co-authored-by: Pal Lakatos-Toth <pallakatos@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant