Re: Regression test rater

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
To: "Janek Warchol" <address@hidden>
Cc: "Devel" <address@hidden>; "LilyPond User Group" 
<address@hidden>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Regression test rater


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Janek Warchol" <address@hidden>
> To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
> Cc: "LilyPond User Group" <address@hidden>; "Devel" 
> <address@hidden>
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 5:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Regression test rater
>
>
> > On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Phil Holmes <address@hidden> 
> > wrote:
> > > First of all, thanks to those who have spent time and energy rating the
> > > regression test at http://www.philholmes.net/lilypond/regtests/ - we're 
> > > very
> > > close to having a rating for all the tests.
> > [...]
> >
> > "LilyPond Regression Test Rater
> > Well - believe it or not, either you've reviewed ALL the LilyPond
> > regtests, in which case thanks and please take a well earned rest, or
> > other reviewers have given us good enough coverage already."
> >
> > wow!  Kudos!
> > :)
> > Janek
>
> Don't get too excited.  It's a bug - it looks like every regtest has 
> received a single rating, but we're going for 4 per regtest, to get a good 
> average.  I'll fix it tomorrow....
>
> --
> Phil Holmes


Kind-of fixed.  The way the files are presented is aimed at ensuring no-one 
rates a regtest more than once, and that they get the least-rated files 
presented to them in a random order.  The only way I seem to be able to get 
this to work is with nested SQL statements, and this is quite slow. The 
alternative would be to make it simpler, so that users simply get files 
which they haven't rated, with no ordering apart from that.  However, the 
downside of this is that we may get lots of files with 4 ratings, but some 
remain with only 1 until we've done the lot.  Let me know what you'd prefer, 
fellow raters.

--
Phil Holmes