[WG: Sakai QA] [samigo-team] SAM-973 rested - was Re: [Important] SAM-973 for CLE 2.9.2 ?

Karen Tsao ktsao at stanford.edu
Mon Jun 24 14:25:16 PDT 2013


Hi Neal,

There are many people comment on this JIRA (and SAM-1994) but I haven't got
time to read and digest all of them. So I am afraid to say it's ready to be
merged into 2.9.x. I can take a look when I get a chance later. Or maybe
other developer can help?

Thanks,
Karen



On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Neal Caidin <neal.caidin at apereo.org>wrote:

> Hi Karen,
>
> That sounds okay to me. For one thing this does not seem like a blocker
> for the 2.9.3 release. And for another I'm still not clear anything needs
> fixing or if the existing work that's been done is sufficient and it just
> needs to be merged into 2.9.x ?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Neal
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Karen Tsao <ktsao at stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi Neal,
>>
>> I can try to fix it. But am busy with our local issues. If this is not
>> urgent, can I look into it later?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Karen
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Neal Caidin <neal.caidin at apereo.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Karen,
>>>
>>> We retested SAM-973 and as far as I can tell the verification holds up
>>> in the GUI. The correct answers have green checkmarks and the incorrect
>>> have red x's , even after the score update. And the score update remains
>>> fine too (the overall score for the individual question).
>>>
>>> I think the only issue is how the score for an individual FITB (fill in
>>> the blank) question is distributed in the database. Example: if an FITB has
>>> 5 items for its answer, the points for the question are 10, and , the
>>> student gets three right, then that is 6 points -  (10/5) * 3 .  In the
>>> database, 3 of the questions would show two points each. If the instructor
>>> overrides the assigned grade to 8 points out of 10, the database stores 1.6
>>> points per item over all 5 answers, instead of 2.67 points per item over
>>> the 3 items answered correctly. Does it matter how the points are
>>> distributed among the items as long as the score for the overall question
>>> is correct and the display of correct answers is correct?
>>>
>>> I assert that if the interface is displaying correctly to the user, then
>>> it does no matter how the score is distributed in the database for the
>>> items in one question.
>>>
>>> Am I describing the problem correctly? Would you agree that the storage
>>> of the score across items is not a problem with which to be concerned? Are
>>> there any APIs that can be affected?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Neal Caidin
>>>
>>> Sakai CLE Community Coordinator
>>> neal.caidin at apereo.org
>>> Skype: nealkdin
>>> AIM: ncaidin at aol.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 2, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Karen Tsao <ktsao at stanford.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah. Maybe we can get it tested again and record the steps.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Karen
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Neal Caidin <
>>> nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Karen,
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I misunderstood then, if it is completely fixed. Perhaps it needs
>>>> some more testing. My understanding is that the GUI piece was fixed but not
>>>> the part related to grading Fill in the Blank questions.
>>>>
>>>> Should I ask for QA help to retest and document any steps to reproduce
>>>> problems (if any)?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Neal
>>>>
>>>> On May 2, 2013, at 1:02 PM, Karen Tsao <ktsao at stanford.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Neal,
>>>>
>>>> Can I know what has not fixed in this JIRA? I thought the issue is
>>>> fixed? Maybe I miss something?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Karen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Neal Caidin <
>>>> nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The CLE team did not identify this as one of the issues to get
>>>>> resolved for RC02 (to be honest, I didn't bring it up based on this thread
>>>>> :-p ).
>>>>>
>>>>> But we still have the original quesiton open about whether this should
>>>>> get merged into 2.9.x (after 2.9.2) and a new ticket opened with Fill in
>>>>> the Blank grading?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> Neal
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Anthony Whyte <arwhyte at umich.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I see no problem with Neal or the QA team raising potential concerns,
>>>>> even between release candidates.  We've got a long standing ticket triage
>>>>> process in place on the release team plus two branch managers with long
>>>>> experience managing 2.9.x.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, I find it both refreshing and encouraging that we can actually
>>>>> talk of the QA team as an actual entity doing good work.  Like Megan though
>>>>> I encourage everyone to consider carefully the cost/benefit to the
>>>>> community of delaying a release in order to pull in just one more
>>>>> non-blocking fix or a few more like it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Anth
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 8:31 PM, Neal Caidin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Megan,
>>>>>
>>>>> My thought process is one of gathering information, not making
>>>>> decisions. I think there are enough checks and balances in the process that
>>>>> hopefully your concerns can be allayed. I see these decisions as ultimately
>>>>> to be made by the CLE release team, correct?
>>>>>
>>>>> You've got a great point and I agree, I would not consider this a
>>>>> blocker for 2.9.2. Does that mean we should not consider adding it? There
>>>>> are a few more like this, where a bug fix has been made and verified in
>>>>> trunk, and it seems like "low hanging fruit" to merge it in and make 2.9.2
>>>>> even a little better as we head towards rc02. I think rc02 is almost an
>>>>> inevitable need, btw. I can understand if you are worried about scope
>>>>> creep.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would prefer to bring these different issues up, especially as they
>>>>> are being brought to my attention by QA testers, and, like I said, gather
>>>>> information for input to the CLE release team. We can always choose to push
>>>>> the issues to 2.9.3 and then we will have a jump start having answered some
>>>>> questions and move some progress on these tickets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Neal
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 4:31 PM, "May, Megan Marie" <mmmay at indiana.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Neal,2****
>>>>>    I’m really, really, really, really concerned that bugs that are not
>>>>> flagged as **blockers**  keep being brought up as candidates for
>>>>> release.****
>>>>>
>>>>> SAM-973 has existed since 2.6.3 . . . why isn’t it being flagged for
>>>>> 2.9.3 like some of the other issues that have been raised? ****
>>>>>
>>>>> Megan****
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* samigo-team-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org [mailto:samigo-
>>>>> team-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org] *On Behalf Of *Neal Caidin
>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:18 PM
>>>>> *To:* Samigo Team
>>>>> *Cc:* sakai-qa at collab.sakaiproject.org QA;
>>>>> cle-release-team at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>>>> *Subject:* [samigo-team] [Important] SAM-973 for CLE 2.9.2 ?
>>>>> *Importance:* High****
>>>>> ** **
>>>>> Dear Samigo Team,****
>>>>> ** **
>>>>> The QA team reviewed opened Jiras that potentially need to be
>>>>> addressed for CLE 2.9.2 (and specifically to get into 2.9.2-rc02, release
>>>>> candidate 02).****
>>>>> ** **
>>>>> We have a question/suggestion for
>>>>> https://jira.sakaiproject.org/browse/SAM-973****
>>>>> ** **
>>>>> We believe that SAM-973 is actually two issues. One is a GUI issue
>>>>> which has been fixed and verified in trunk. The GUI issue was sometimes
>>>>> displaying incorrect answers as though they were the correct answers (with
>>>>> green checkmarks). We think that this issue should have the 2.9.x merge
>>>>> flag set and be merged into 2.9.2-rc02.****
>>>>> ** **
>>>>> The other issue in SAM-973 is a problem with grading Fill in the Blank
>>>>> answers. This does not yet appear to be fixed and may or may not need
>>>>> additional discussion. For this one we suggest opening a separate ticket.
>>>>> ****
>>>>> ** **
>>>>> Does that make sense to you too? ****
>>>>> ** **
>>>>> Thanks!****
>>>>> ** **
>>>>> Neal Caidin****
>>>>>
>>>>> Sakai CLE Community Coordinator****
>>>>> nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org****
>>>>> Skype: nealkdin****
>>>>> AIM: ncaidin at aol.com****
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ** **
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> samigo-team mailing list
>>>>> samigo-team at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/samigo-team
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> samigo-team mailing list
>>>>> samigo-team at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/samigo-team
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> samigo-team mailing list
>>> samigo-team at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/samigo-team
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/sakai-qa/attachments/20130624/8c02081b/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the sakai-qa mailing list