I took a look when it was first proposed, but I will check if I spot anything new. Thanks to both for your work! Ste On 6 May 2013 18:08, Luca Wehrstedt <luca.wehrstedt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > in the past months we've been working on a long awaited feature: task > versioning! > > This feature basically splits out many fields from the tasks to put them > into so-called "datasets". Nothing great here, except that a task can have > many datasets simultaneously! (This forced us to split out compilation, > execution and scoring related data from submissions and create so-called > "results", one for each (submission, dataset) pair, and the same for > usertests too). > > Only one dataset per task will be "live" at any moment (and the data shown > on CWS and RWS will be taken from it), but the others can be (optionally) > evaluated too, in "background". > > The main advantage is that, in case of misconfigurations or bugs in > managers and testcase, admins can clone a dataset, fix the error, recompile > and/or reevaluate submissions, verify that the error has been correctly > fixed, consider the impact that the change will have on the scores and, > only at this point (!), activate the dataset to make the users aware of all > this. This means that the users will experience no downtime at all during > the admin's work and during the reevaluation process. > > The *code* for this can be found on: * > https://github.com/lerks/cms/commits/master*<https://github.com/lerks/cms/commits/master> > (it's > based on the current cms-dev/master). > > The diff is quite large since the changes affect almost every > service/server/utility/etc. I tried to split them into "code areas", in > order of importance (DB, grading, ES, SS, CWS, AWS, etc.). The commit > titles describe this order but are otherwise not very descriptive. We may > want to change that (and perhaps squash some commits) before pushing to > cms-dev/master: I did this only to ease the review of the code. > > So, please, *could someone review the code?* I and Bernard already did > it, but it'd great if (at least) a third developer could do that too. > > I'm not very satisfied with the RWS-related commit, but I still need to > think if (and how) we can make it better. We're also missing some changes > (namely to the documentation and to cmsMake) but they're not essential so > don't wait for them to start your review! > > Thanks for reading this long email, > > Luca >