fix: #1044 - now using a unique compatibility algorithm #1046
Conversation
Impacted files: * `app_en.arb`: added a short "compatible" label; down to 3 longer compatibility labels * `app_fr.arb`: added a short "compatible" label; down to 3 longer compatibility labels * `product_compatibility_helper.dart`: removed all computations; down to 3 compatibility possibilities * `smooth_product_card_found.dart`: now using `MatchedProduct` and its computations * `summary_card.dart`: now using `MatchedProduct` and its computations
|
|
||
| // Defines the weight of an attribute while computing the average match score | ||
| // for the product. The weight depends upon it's importance set in user prefs. | ||
| const Map<String, int> attributeImportanceWeight = <String, int>{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so this was an algorithm written by Stephane to compute the product compatibility score, does MatchedProduct adhere to the same algorithm ? I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem like it, and it should :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What we can agree on is that we should use only one algorithm.
@teolemon seemed to say that 5 levels were considered by end-users as too confusing and that 3 are enough.
And my algorithm too was initially written by Stéphane, I just converted it to dart.
Which algorithm should we keep? No idea.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@stephanegigandet @teolemon @jasmeet0817 @M123-dev My opinion: the main point here is to have a unique score algorithm on the app (much better for end-users, UX-wise), and that is implemented by this PR.
We can later say: maybe we should improve the score algorithm, add a possible enum value, fix here and there.
But for the moment, that looks good enough.
|
I agree with the simplification in this PR, and specially getting rid of the % match and converting that to simply "Compatible/Incompatible...". Which is simple, and simple is always good. My only concern is around the computation of the compatibility. Stephane described the algorithm in "Personal Match Banner -> Alternative match algorithm proposal" section. |
|
@monsieurtanuki Yes, I pinged @stephanegigandet about that, to double check the formula, but we're all busy on a packaging input related question. I'm going to approve it 👍 |
|
Yes agree and that's the advantage of git we'll always have access to the current implementation |
Impacted files:
app_en.arb: added a short "compatible" label; down to 3 longer compatibility labelsapp_fr.arb: added a short "compatible" label; down to 3 longer compatibility labelsproduct_compatibility_helper.dart: removed all computations; down to 3 compatibility possibilitiessmooth_product_card_found.dart: now usingMatchedProductand its computationssummary_card.dart: now usingMatchedProductand its computationsWe also got rid of the
129% compatibilitylabel, replaced by'compatible'