FR: Improve wording for Settings > Transitive > rounds

[charleshan]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I just started using the latest version in beta and I noticed Settings > Transitive > rounds, which was cryptic without reading the docs.

Describe the solution you'd like
We should use a better choice of words and better UI. How about visibility with a dropdown for disabled, explicit only, and implicit and explicit. We wouldn't even have to change how we save the value (0, 1, or 2).

[SkepticMystic]

@mProjectsCode I like this suggestion. We can keep the rounds as an implementation detail, but perhaps only give the choice of the 3 options above. Maybe if someone asks for it, there can be an "advanced" feature to set rounds explicitly

[mProjectsCode]

implicit and explicit does not relate to 2 though, it relates to potentially very many, not sure about the exact bound but an upper bound should be node_count * rule_count, of rounds.

[SkepticMystic]

I was thinking we could use some high-enough value for 2. Like currently, all implied rules are set to rounds: 10 by default. We can push it higher, but I think nodes * rules is practically too high