Reviewing questions #3175

mic4ael · 2017-12-07T07:08:22Z

No description provided.

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-07T08:26:11Z

indico/core/db/sqlalchemy/review_questions.py

+    @declared_attr
+    def question_type(cls):
+        return db.Column(
+            db.Text,


db.String; we usually only use Text for multiline stuff. technically it makes no real difference though since varchar/text in postgres are almost the same

Maybe this could be an enum?

Not a great idea IMO, since that'd make it much harder if we ever wanted to use a signal to return the field types (like we do in surveys, contrib fields, etc) instead of supporting only a hardcoded list.

Ah, you mean having it extended by plugins? Good point.

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-07T08:27:54Z

indico/core/db/sqlalchemy/review_questions.py

+
+    @property
+    def description(self):
+        return None


maybe add a comment that this is required by BaseField?

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-07T08:29:39Z

indico/core/db/sqlalchemy/review_questions.py

+
+    @property
+    def is_required(self):
+        return self.field_data['is_required']


I don't think this should be in field_data. Stuff that is in common_settings is assumed to be in a column, not the field-specific data: (see update_object in BaseField)

ok, fair enough, I didn't notice that method

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-07T08:36:39Z

indico/migrations/versions/20171124_1138_2af245be72a6_review_questions_models.py

+                  schema='event_abstracts')
+    op.alter_column('abstract_review_questions', 'question_type', server_default=None, schema='event_abstracts')
+    op.add_column('abstract_review_questions', sa.Column('field_data', sa.JSON(), nullable=False,
+                                                         server_default='{"is_required": true}'),


see my comment above; this should be in a column

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-07T08:37:07Z

indico/migrations/versions/20171124_1138_2af245be72a6_review_questions_models.py

+                  schema='event_paper_reviewing')
+    op.alter_column('review_questions', 'question_type', server_default=None, schema='event_paper_reviewing')
+    op.add_column('review_questions', sa.Column('field_data', sa.JSON(), nullable=False,
+                                                server_default='{"is_required": true}'),


see my comment above; this should be in a column

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-07T09:57:03Z

indico/modules/events/papers/controllers/management.py

+            raise NotFound
+
+
+class RHCreateReviewingQuestion(RHReviewingQuestionsActionsBase):


I think most of this logic could be moved into mixins to avoid duplicating it for abstracts/papers...

extracted to functions which are in operations.py module

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-07T10:12:32Z

indico/modules/events/papers/forms.py

@@ -236,6 +216,10 @@ def split_data(self):
        return {'questions_data': {k: v for k, v in data.iteritems() if k.startswith('question_')},
                'review_data': {k: v for k, v in data.iteritems() if not k.startswith('question_')}}

+    @property
+    def has_questions(self):
+        return len(filter(lambda item: item[0].startswith('question_'), self.data.iteritems())) != 0


see my comment on the other incarnation of this method

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-07T10:13:26Z

indico/modules/events/reviewing_questions_fields.py

+
+    @property
+    def field_data(self):
+        return {'is_required': self.is_required.data}


shouldn't be in field_data

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-07T10:17:00Z

indico/modules/events/reviewing_questions_fields.py

+    config_form_base = TextReviewingQuestionConfigForm
+
+
+def get_reviewing_question_types():


Why not add an argument for the type (abstracts/papers) instead of returning both?

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-07T10:18:15Z

indico/modules/events/templates/reviews/timeline.html

+                                            {% elif rating.question.question_type == 'bool' %}
+                                                {{ _('Yes') if rating.value else _('No') }}
+                                            {% else %}
+                                                {{ rating.value|safe }}


|safe? that sounds like a very bad idea since it lets you put HTML there...

pferreir · 2017-12-07T10:44:18Z

indico/core/db/sqlalchemy/review_questions.py

+    @declared_attr
+    def question_type(cls):
+        return db.Column(
+            db.Text,


Maybe this could be an enum?

pferreir · 2017-12-07T10:51:41Z

indico/modules/events/abstracts/forms.py

@@ -335,6 +324,10 @@ def split_data(self):
        return {'questions_data': {k: v for k, v in data.iteritems() if k.startswith('question_')},
                'review_data': {k: v for k, v in data.iteritems() if not k.startswith('question_')}}

+    @property
+    def has_questions(self):
+        return len(filter(lambda item: item[0].startswith('question_'), self.data.iteritems())) != 0


👍 for the suggestion, 👎 for the monkey. Nothing against monkeys.

mic4ael · 2017-12-08T13:20:53Z

Updated

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-08T15:34:35Z

indico/core/db/sqlalchemy/review_questions.py

+
+    @property
+    def description(self):
+        """Required by BaseField for creating an instance of WTForms field"""


I think this should be a comment, not a docstring

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-08T15:35:31Z

indico/modules/events/operations.py

+
+def create_reviewing_question(event, question_model, wtf_field_cls, form, data=None):
+    new_question = question_model()
+    new_question.no_score = True if wtf_field_cls.name != 'rating' else getattr(form, 'no_score', True)


wtf_field_cls.name != 'rating' or getattr(form, 'no_score', True)

Also, if form is a wtform, then the else block is broken, since the attribute is a field, not its data.

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-08T15:36:42Z

indico/core/db/sqlalchemy/review_questions.py

+    @property
+    def no_score(self):
+        return self.field_type != 'rating' or self._no_score
+


You might want to add a .expression for the property; like this you can use it in filter() criteria as well.

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-08T15:37:39Z

indico/modules/events/abstracts/models/abstracts.py

                 .join(AbstractReviewRating.review)
                 .join(AbstractReviewRating.question)
                 .filter(AbstractReview.abstract == self,
+                         AbstractReviewQuestion.field_type == 'rating',
+                         AbstractReviewRating.value.cast(db.String) != db.text("'null'"),


I'd still change the field type to JSONB and use jsonb_typeof for the check.

Because there is no json_typeof. JSON is stored as a string, while JSONB is stored in a binary format that allows postgres to actually look at its contents.

are you sure there is no json_typeof? https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/functions-json.html

Indeed, looks like it's only the operators that are JSONB-only. Anyway, the performance is probably better with JSONB

Yeah, but do we need that performance in a field which holds only one simple value?

No, it probably doesn't make a noticeable difference here.

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-08T15:39:08Z

indico/migrations/versions/20171124_1138_2af245be72a6_review_questions_models.py

+               "IN(SELECT id FROM event_paper_reviewing.review_questions WHERE field_type != 'rating')")
+    op.execute("DELETE FROM event_paper_reviewing.review_questions WHERE field_type != 'rating'")
+    op.execute('ALTER TABLE event_paper_reviewing.review_ratings ALTER COLUMN "value" TYPE INT '
+               'USING to_json(value)::TEXT::INT')


Why to_json()? value is already JSON here, isn't it?

Not sure why.. my overlooking

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-08T15:55:06Z

indico/modules/events/papers/operations.py

        if old_value != rating.value:
-            changes[field_name] = (old_value, rating.value)
+            changes[field_name] = (question.field.get_friendly_value(old_value),
+                                   question.field.get_friendly_value(rating.value))
            log_fields[field_name] = {
                'title': question.text,
                'type': 'number'


needs to depend on the question type

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-08T15:55:43Z

indico/modules/events/reviewing_questions_fields.py

+        return {'coerce': int, 'choices': choices, 'rating_range': range_, 'question': self.object}
+
+
+class BoolReviewingQuestionConfigForm(BaseReviewingQuestionConfigForm):


Why not just use the base one? this subclass seems to be a bit pointless

yeah, I just wanted to have separate classes for each field

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-08T15:57:50Z

indico/modules/events/reviewing_questions_fields.py

+
+class BaseReviewingQuestionConfigForm(IndicoForm):
+    text = StringField(_('Question'), [DataRequired()])
+    is_required = BooleanField(_('Required'), widget=SwitchWidget())


can we avoid replicating all the config forms here and just use the ones of the base fields? i think you are only replicating them to get rid of description but keeping a description wouldn't be so bad IMO! (on the review page we could show it as an info tooltip for example)

This title = StringField(_('Title'), [DataRequired()], description=_("The title of the field")) from FieldConfigForm makes a little bit of a problem. Since in the context of reviewing fields Title for the field label is wrong.

"[Question] Title" is not so bad IMO, and you could modify the description after instantiating the form

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-08T15:58:49Z

indico/modules/events/templates/reviewing_questions_management.html

+            {% for name, field_type in field_types.iteritems() -%}
+                <li>
+                    <a class="js-action-button"
+                       data-href="{{ url_for(actions.create, event, field_type=name, **(args.create|default({}))) }}"


if you get rid of the nested dict as suggested above, you can just use **common_url_args instead of the default({}) stuff

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-08T15:59:50Z

indico/modules/events/templates/reviewing_questions_management.html

+                       data-href="{{ url_for(actions.create, event, field_type=name, **(args.create|default({}))) }}"
+                       data-title="{% trans %}Add custom reviewing question{% endtrans %}"
+                       data-ajax-dialog>
+                        {% trans name=field_type.friendly_name %}


what's the point of this trans block?

Ah, indeed, the friendly_name is already translated here.

Even if it was, this wouldn't help, since the string would not be extracted for translation (it might just work by coincidence if it was extracted somewhere else)

mic4ael · 2017-12-11T14:26:28Z

Updated

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-12T09:54:21Z

indico/core/db/sqlalchemy/review_questions.py

+
+    @no_score.expression
+    def no_score(self):
+        return self._no_score


I think we want the proper check here (also, rename self to cls since it's the class and not an instance):

return (cls.field_type != 'rating') | cls._no_score

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-12T09:56:56Z

indico/core/db/sqlalchemy/review_questions.py

+    def title(self):
+        return self.text
+
+    # Required by BaseField for creating an instance of WTForms field


I would move this inside the method

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-12T09:58:14Z

indico/migrations/versions/20171124_1138_2af245be72a6_review_questions_models.py

+
+
+def upgrade():
+    op.add_column('abstract_review_questions',


If the code is the same for abstract and paper review questions, then I'd use a loop instead of repeating the code:

for schema, table in (('x', 'y'), ('a', 'b')):

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-12T14:13:35Z

indico/modules/events/reviewing_questions_fields.py

+
+class BaseReviewingQuestionConfigForm(IndicoForm):
+    text = StringField(_('Question'), [DataRequired()])
+    is_required = BooleanField(_('Required'), widget=SwitchWidget())


"[Question] Title" is not so bad IMO, and you could modify the description after instantiating the form

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-12T14:17:42Z

indico/modules/events/abstracts/operations.py

            log_fields[field_name] = {
                'title': question.text,
-                'type': 'number'
+                'type': question.field_type


I don't think we want 'type': 'rating' here, since it's just a number in the end.

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-12T14:18:33Z

indico/modules/events/logs/util.py

@@ -89,7 +89,11 @@ def render_changes(a, b, type_):
    :param b: new value
    :param type_: the type determining how the values should be compared
    """
-    if type_ in ('number', 'enum', 'bool', 'datetime'):
+    if type_ in ('number', 'enum', 'bool', 'datetime', 'rating'):


see my comment above, i would not introduce a 'rating' type here

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-12T14:19:17Z

indico/modules/events/operations.py

+    new_question = question_model()
+    new_question.no_score = True
+    if 'no_score' in form.data:
+        new_question.no_score = form.data['no_score']


if form.no_score: and (in the next line) form.no_score.data. no need to build the data dict thrice

form.no_score will raise an AttributeError if there is no such a property

if hasattr(form, 'no_score'): will be a better option

You can use 'no_score' in form

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-12T14:21:08Z

indico/modules/events/papers/operations.py

            log_fields[field_name] = {
                'title': question.text,
-                'type': 'number'
+                'type': question.field_type


see my other comment

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-12T14:26:03Z

indico/modules/events/templates/reviewing_questions_management.html

+                return $(item).data('item-id');
+            });
+
+            ids = $.makeArray(ids);


If this is just converting the jquery object ids to a plain array, you can just call .get() after .map()

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-12T14:26:26Z

indico/modules/events/templates/reviews/rating_widget.html

+        {% for bullet in range(rating_range[1], rating_range[0] - 1, -1) %}
+            {% set radio_id = '%s-%d'|format(field.id, bullet) %}
+            <input type="radio" id="{{ radio_id }}" name="{{ field.name }}" value="{{ bullet }}"
+                    {{ 'checked' if field.data == bullet }}>


1 space too much indentation

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-13T13:24:09Z

indico/migrations/versions/20171124_1138_2af245be72a6_review_questions_models.py

@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
 def upgrade():
    for schema, a, b in (('event_abstracts', 'abstract_review_ratings', 'abstract_review_questions'),


a and b, really? ;)

how about some meaningful names. You can always define the list in a separate statement above to keep it readable.

ThiefMaster · 2017-12-13T13:24:45Z

indico/web/templates/forms/_form.html

@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@
    </div>
 {%- endmacro %}

-{% macro form_field(field, field_classes, widget_attrs={}, disabled=none) -%}
+{% macro form_field(field, field_classes, hide_description, widget_attrs={}, disabled=none) -%}


this should default to false

mic4ael · 2017-12-13T13:45:01Z

Updated

mic4ael force-pushed the reviewing-questions branch from 55459a7 to 4d0c980 Compare December 7, 2017 07:20

ThiefMaster requested changes Dec 7, 2017

View reviewed changes

pferreir requested changes Dec 7, 2017

View reviewed changes

mic4ael force-pushed the reviewing-questions branch 6 times, most recently from a5bca2b to f36707a Compare December 8, 2017 11:17

ThiefMaster requested changes Dec 8, 2017

View reviewed changes

mic4ael force-pushed the reviewing-questions branch 5 times, most recently from b58dcea to 3ca962d Compare December 11, 2017 14:11

mic4ael force-pushed the reviewing-questions branch from 3ca962d to 47de067 Compare December 11, 2017 15:10

ThiefMaster reviewed Dec 12, 2017

View reviewed changes

mic4ael force-pushed the reviewing-questions branch 3 times, most recently from 85bbcb3 to 652a5fb Compare December 13, 2017 10:33

ThiefMaster reviewed Dec 13, 2017

View reviewed changes

mic4ael force-pushed the reviewing-questions branch from 5daaee0 to 811d932 Compare December 13, 2017 13:42

ThiefMaster added this to the v2.1 milestone Dec 14, 2017

mic4ael force-pushed the reviewing-questions branch from 811d932 to 377ee4a Compare January 8, 2018 10:29

ThiefMaster changed the base branch from v2.1-dev to master January 12, 2018 14:59

mic4ael force-pushed the reviewing-questions branch from 377ee4a to 30dc3a6 Compare January 16, 2018 12:15

Style fixes

d964025

mic4ael added 16 commits January 17, 2018 14:34

Adapt models to new reviewing question types

9343458

Define new reviewing question types

0cf1da1

Management of abstract reviewing questions

99f0936

Management of paper reviewing questions

3fd596e

Create different review fields

b71b08c

Add header-only class when needed

48b016b

Add property field to ReviewQuestion subclasses

c780003

Use update_object method to update questions

b785a59

Add more logging to the abstracts/papers RHs

ae443dc

Add no_score property

26322c4

Use friendly_value for event logs

ad8de30

Create single tpl to manage reviewing questions

279e9f3

Extract methods to a separate module

2fbb699

Use number type when comparing rating fields

83cda97

Add description column and rename text to title

8d433ac

Add hide_description argument to form_row macro

90493f8

ThiefMaster force-pushed the reviewing-questions branch from 30dc3a6 to 90493f8 Compare January 17, 2018 13:34

ThiefMaster added 2 commits January 17, 2018 14:59

Fix review textare sizing

295eeba

Allow "0" ratings in required review fields

67e043a

ThiefMaster approved these changes Jan 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

pferreir approved these changes Jan 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

Add changelog entry

705b17a

ThiefMaster merged commit 705b17a into indico:master Jan 17, 2018

mic4ael deleted the reviewing-questions branch January 18, 2018 06:55

		raise NotFound


		class RHCreateReviewingQuestion(RHReviewingQuestionsActionsBase):

		config_form_base = TextReviewingQuestionConfigForm


		def get_reviewing_question_types():

		return {'coerce': int, 'choices': choices, 'rating_range': range_, 'question': self.object}


		class BoolReviewingQuestionConfigForm(BaseReviewingQuestionConfigForm):

		@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
		def upgrade():
		for schema, a, b in (('event_abstracts', 'abstract_review_ratings', 'abstract_review_questions'),

Reviewing questions #3175

Reviewing questions #3175

Conversation

mic4ael commented Dec 7, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mic4ael commented Dec 8, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mic4ael commented Dec 11, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mic4ael commented Dec 13, 2017