Plain responses, without files, were getting messed up by the
fix for MDL-39980. Something that looked like an HTML comment was being
appended.
This fix works by avoiding appending anything if there are no files. The
new unit test (which was failing before I fixed the code) confirms that
this works. The other tests should be enough to verify that there are no
regressions.
We now compute the average CBM score, accuracy, CBM bonus and enhanced
accuracy, both for the entire quiz, and for just the questions answered.
Note that these calculations must work correctly in the presence of
descriptions, ungraded questions, and manually graded questions. For
example, imagine a essay added at the end of the quiz "Summarise what
you learned attempting this exercise." This might have max mark zero or
non-zero. The CBM statistics just ignores questions like that.
We now change so that minfraction is -6 and maxfraction is 3, so getting
the question right a low certainty gives maxmark marks, and you get a
bonus for being more confident (rather than being penalised for being
unconfident). Mathematically it is the same, but the difference is
importnat psychologically.
We also change how partially correct scores are handled.
It is too harsh to penalise a partially correct score with full
certainty by doing a linear interpolation between -6 and +3. Instead,
any partially correct score (e.g. 0.5) becomes that fraction of the
correct score (e.g. 0.5 * 3 = 1.5). Also, any incorrect score is treated
as 0, so if you have a multiple choice question that normally gives a
negative score for a wrong choice, this will now never give a score of
less than -6.
Finally we change how this is displayed to students beside the question.
Rather than saying "Marked out of 1.00", we say "Base mark 1.00", and
then later we say "CBM mark 3.00" (or whatever it is).
This parallels question_attempt->minfraction, which allows the
fractional mark to go below zere.
This is needed to allow the certainty-base marking behaviours to work
better.
At the top of the quiz reivew page, there is a table that summarises
infomration about the quiz attempt as a whole. For some question
behaviours, we would like to be able to add additional information to
that summary.
This commit introduces a generic method for the behaviour to provide
summary information about an entire question usage.
It was always a bit of a hack to use static methods on the
qbehaviour_whatever classes to return metadata about the behaviour. It
is better design to have real qbehaviour_whatever_type classes to report
that metadata, particularly now that we are planning to add more such.
For example, inheritance works better with real classes. See, for
example, the improvements in
question_engine::get_behaviour_unused_display_options().
This change has been implemented in a backwards-compatbile way. Old
behaviours will continue to work. There will just be some developer debug
output to prompt people to upgrade their code properly.
quiz_question_statistics_stats renamed to question_statistics_calculator
separate class question_statistics used to store calculated stats
and api changed, also code generally cleaned up.
quiz_question_statistics_stats renamed to question_statistics_calculator
separate class question_statistics used to store calculated stats
and api changed, also code generally cleaned up.
to question bank
- move cron to clean up old cache records move code and
rename classes
- further review of the quiz reports statistics code
- starting to separate calculations of quiz stats, question stats and
response analysis
- introduce hashcode db field for cached stats convert
- code to use qubaids hashcode for caches
We just drop the old tables (including previous upgrade steps) and
re-create the new ones, because these tables just cache calculated
statistics. No important data is stored in them.
I think this used to work because mod/forum/lib.php used to be included
everywhere, and in turn included lib/formslib.php. We should declare the
dependencey explicitly.
This slighly changes the format for the way answers are stroed in the DB
in the case where there is some HTML content, but no files. This should
not cause any problems.
When doing Each attempt builds on last, we need to copy any response
files into a draft file area, and then re-save them.
While writing the unit test for this, I had to deal with a todo in the
question engine so that questions with files in the response could be
unit-tested.
I also found an fixed a bug with qtype_essay_question::is_same_response
and fixed some notices in the existing essay/manual graded unit tests.
At the moment, when attempt is built on the last one, "not yet answered"
message is shown, which confuses many people. This patch modifies the state to
"complete" for attempt based on previous and modifies the output string.
Many thanks to Tim Hunt for guiding me through quiz infrastructure and some code
suggestions.
1. Autosave works in some ways just like a normal save. We ultimately
call $behaviour->process_save() to do the work, and create a new step to
hold the data.
2. However, we come in through a completely different route through the
API, starting with separate auto-save methods. This keeps the auto-save
changes mostly separate, and so reduced the chance of breaking existing
working code.
3. When the time comes to store the auto-save step in the database, we
save it using a negative sequence number.
This is a clever trick that not only distinguises these steps, but also
avoids unique key errors when an auto-save and a real action happen
simultaneously. (There are unit tests for these tricky edge cases.)
4. When we load the data back from the database, most of the time the
auto-save steps are loaded back as if they were a real save, and so the
auto-saved data is used when the question is then rendered.
5. However, before we process another action, we remove the auto-saved
step, so it does not appear in the final history.
1. Split the question_attempt tests into one class per file.
2. Imporve the API to give tests more control, and to test more of the
important code. Some of this is not used here, but it is about to be.
