If you are interested in this please let me know. #7870 was just merged into v4.0, and would need some rework here to incorporate correct positioning.

@wf-r go for it. You'll need to change the target branch to v4.0.

You'll need to change the target branch to v4.0.

I think I am not allowed to do it (or I don't find the option). Can you do this, please?

Please have a look at this.

I'm done for today. Things one could discuss:

• new attribute link.valueformat only applies to permanent link labels, not to link hovers (trace.valueformat does all the rest).
• link.textfont again only applies to permanent link labels, trace.textfont to everything else
• labels do currently not fade out. should they?

• Do you need the new attributes if there are already trace.valueformat and trace.textfont?
• What would the labels fading out look like?

I'm back, sorry I was busy with other work.

• Do you need the new attributes if there are already trace.valueformat and trace.textfont?

You are right, link.valueformat could be removed in favor of trace.valueformat (which is already used for link and node hovers). As for link.textfont: Would we like to style labels different from nodes or node hovers? If not we could remove it and use trace.textfont. There are some plots that use different textfonts for different components (treemap), I have no preference how to do it here.

• What would the labels fading out look like?

Sankey nodes and links do a

....exit()
        .transition()
        .ease(c.ease).duration(c.duration)
        .style('opacity', 0)
        .remove();

while the link label just does sankeyLinkLabel.exit().remove();.

So if we e.g. filter links we get a slightly different behaviour between link label and link itself.

This got closed by accident! I still want to get the work merged, but the v4.0 branch got deleted and now I can't change the base branch of the PR. I'll see if there's another way to get this open again.