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.
At the moment using short-forms no these forms really does not work. In
future is may be possible to do a complete overhaul, but for now, just
disabling short-forms is a simple fix.
The problem was that array1 + array2 takes the values from
array1 when a key appears in both places.
While working on this area, I updated it to use html_writer.
This works on the expectation that the returned array from readdata()
is opaque and will be fed directly into readquestions() since
filebase is different per file and needs to be set up appropriately
before each parse.
Comment format (FORMAT_...) was correctly being processed when the
manual grading happened as the result of a form submission. It was only
when done using the question_usage or question_attempt API method that
there was no way to specify the format. (Although I think the only place
this API as used was in the unit tests.)
Note that question_attempt::manual_grade API had to change, but I don't
think that is a real API change. Calling code should be using
question_usage::question_attempt, which is backwards compatible.
Note that now, if you don't pass format, then no error is generated, but
a developer debugging message is generated.
