Expertiza_Wiki - User contributions [en]

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-29T02:05:54Z

Rkalaig: /* Screencast */

== '''Introduction''' ==

This project aims to enhance the review report and summary page, and display more information necessary for grading. The goal is to help the instructors by making the process of grading reviews easier and more accurate.

== '''Problem Statement''' ==

===Issue 1: Visualization of Metrics in Review Reports===

There are some issues with the current review report page with regards to the Metrics column.
:*Metrics are displayed as plain text.
:*No comparison on how this student compares with other students.
:*If more metrics are added, showing multiple lines of text for each metric can make the column cluttered and difficult to read.

Showing a bar chart for the metric rather than just text would improve the user experience. The bar chart can also depict the average for all students for this metric, so the grader can see how this student compares with other students. Also, if several metrics are shown in the column, the bar chart can be made resizable to accommodate multiple bars.

[[File: e1815_issue1.JPG|center]]

===Issue 2: Updating Review Summary view===

To view this page you click the summary in the row for any student.

This page summarizes the peer Reviews given to the Author. They are basically separated into three columns i.e reviewee, score and comments.

#The first issue in this view is that there is no header saying what course, assignment, or student this relates to.
#Secondly, The field that lists the team members is wider than the rest of the columns combined. The comments column needs more space it will contain more information
#Finally, For questions answered with check-boxes, comments are not necessary, but still a blank cell is displayed.

[[File:reviewee.PNG|center]]

===Issue 3: Adding color schemes to identify updates to reviews as per submissions===

Currently, in review report, each team reviewed is color coded as, red indicating that the review is not yet completed and blue indicating that the review grade is not assigned or updated. So if an instructor sees a name in red, the student should not be given credit for the review. If text is in blue, then the student has not been graded for the review, so the instructor should grade it now. But there is caveat here. If the reviewer has reviewed the work but the author did not resubmit, the reviewer has nothing new to review in the latest round and should not be downgraded for not re-reviewing the work. This issue needs to be addressed.
[[File:Colorscheme.PNG]]

This is what the current color scheme looks like. The text in blue indicates that the student has not been graded, while the text in red indicates the student should not be given credits.

== '''Files Changed''' ==
* app/assets/stylesheets/redbox.scss
* app/helpers/review_mapping_helper.rb
* app/views/review_mapping/_review_report.html.erb
* app/views/popup/view_review_scores_popup.html.erb
* config/application.rb

== '''Solutions Implemented''' ==

===Issue 1: Visualization of Metrics in Review Reports===

We replaced the text given in the Metrics column with a bar chart, as shown below. The bar chart depicts the overall average of all students for this metric, the average of this student for this metric (based on each round) and the metric values for each round for this student.

====Code Changes====

* File: app/helpers/review_mapping_helper.rb
The following methods were added to calculate average for this metric for all students and for calculating maximum value for this metric. The maximum is needed for constructing bar chart. The second method was added to construct the x-axis labels in the format "0|50|100|...|max" for the bar chart.
[[File: Methods-1.JPG|center]]

* File: app/helpers/review_mapping_helper.rb
The following method constructs the bar chart.
[[File: Methods-2.JPG|center]]

* File: app/views/review_mapping/_review_report.html.erb
The following code is added to get the average metric, maximum value of metric and x-axis value from controller.
[[File: Html-1.JPG|center]]

* File: app/views/review_mapping/_review_report.html.erb
The following code includes the bar chart in the review report page.
[[File: Html-2.JPG|center]]

====Screenshots====

[[File: Metrics-result.JPG|center]]

===Issue 2: Updating Review Summary view===

We have spanned the question text to all three columns instead of it being one, also the width of the first column containing the reviewee information is reduced appropriately.
Checkbox Questions are displayed more compactly by including Question to the left and automatically adjusting the width of the reviews to right. A green tick is added if the reviewer selected the checkbox and a red cross mark is added if the reviewer did not select the checkbox.

The file modified is app/views/popup/view_review_scores_popup.html.erb

In the code, we identified whether a question is Checkbox question or not and changed the row to include the question on the left and auto adjusting the response from the reviewer's on right.

[[File:Issue_2_code_snippet.png]]

The page looks as follows

[[File:Issue_2_final_display1.png]]

===Issue 3===
To address the caveat mentioned above, we have used green color to distinguish reviewers who have nothing new to review as the authors have not made any changes. This is what the end result looks like,

[[File:EndResult.PNG]]

For doing this, we are getting the last modified date/time of the wiki links and comparing it with the last review submission deadline. If the last modified date/time of the wiki links is before the last review submission deadline, there is nothing new to review and hence green should be used instead of blue to display the author's name. To ensure this check we have added the is_submission_updated_for_last_round function to the /app/helpers/review_mapping_helper.rb,

last_round = 0
assignment_deadlines = DueDate.where(parent_id: response_map.reviewed_object_id)
number_of_assignemnt_rounds = @assignment.num_review_rounds
current_time = Time.new
r = number_of_assignemnt_rounds..1
due_time = DueDate.new
(r.first).downto(r.last).each do |round|
due_time = assignment_deadlines.where(round: round, deadline_type_id: 1).try(:first).try(:due_at)
if(current_time > due_time)
last_round = round
break
end
end
if(last_round > 1)
previous_round = last_round-1
prev_due_time=assignment_deadlines.where(round: previous_round, deadline_type_id: 1).try(:first).try(:due_at)
team = Team.find(response_map.reviewee_id)
hyperlinks_count = team.hyperlinks.size
testable_links_count = 0
if !team.hyperlinks.empty?
#flag is false when none of the wiki links are updated
flag = false
team.hyperlinks.each do |link|
if ((link.include? "wiki") && !flag)
testable_links_count = testable_links_count + 1
last_modified = open(link) do |f|
if(!(f.last_modified < prev_due_time))
flag= true
break
end
end
end
end
end
if(flag == false && hyperlinks_count == testable_links_count)
return false
else
return true
end
else
return true
end
end

== '''Test Plan''' ==
===Issue 1: Visualization of Metrics in Review Reports===

1) Login as an instructor

2) Navigate to review grader by doing this (Manage > Assignments)

3) Click on the “View review report” icon (the one with the spyglass and two people)

4) Check if the visualizations are appearing in the review report.

===Issue 2: Updates and Review Summary View ===

1) Login as an instructor

2) Navigate to review grader by doing this (Manage > Assignments)

3) Click on the “View review report” icon (the one with the spyglass and two people)

4) In the review report click on the “summary” in the row for any student.

5) Check if the changes are appearing in the page as mentioned in the proposed solution.

===Issue 3: Adding Color Schemes to Identify Updates to Review As Per Submission===

1) Login as an instructor

2) Navigate to review grader by doing this (Manage > Assignments)

3) Click on the “View review report” icon (the one with the spyglass and two people)

== '''Screencast''' ==

* https://youtu.be/M47R66LYkHU

== '''References''' ==

Expertiza
* https://expertiza.ncsu.edu/

Expertiza Github
* https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza

Expertiza Documentation
* http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/Expertiza_documentation

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-29T00:58:05Z

Rkalaig: /* Issue 1: Visualization of Metrics in Review Reports */

== '''Introduction''' ==

This project aims to enhance the review report and summary page, and display more information necessary for grading. The goal is to help the instructors by making the process of grading reviews easier and more accurate.

== '''Problem Statement''' ==

===Issue 1: Visualization of Metrics in Review Reports===

There are some issues with the current review report page with regards to the Metrics column.
:*Metrics are displayed as plain text.
:*No comparison on how this student compares with other students.
:*If more metrics are added, showing multiple lines of text for each metric can make the column cluttered and difficult to read.

Showing a bar chart for the metric rather than just text would improve the user experience. The bar chart can also depict the average for all students for this metric, so the grader can see how this student compares with other students. Also, if several metrics are shown in the column, the bar chart can be made resizable to accommodate multiple bars.

[[File: e1815_issue1.JPG|center]]

===Issue 2: Updating Review Summary view===

To view this page you click the summary in the row for any student.

This page summarizes the peer Reviews given to the Author. They are basically separated into three columns i.e reviewee, score and comments.

#The first issue in this view is that there is no header saying what course, assignment, or student this relates to.
#Secondly, The field that lists the team members is wider than the rest of the columns combined. The comments column needs more space it will contain more information
#Finally, For questions answered with check-boxes, comments are not necessary, but still a blank cell is displayed.

[[File:reviewee.PNG|center]]

===Issue 3: Adding color schemes to identify updates to reviews as per submissions===

Currently, in review report, each team reviewed is color coded as, red indicating that the review is not yet completed and blue indicating that the review grade is not assigned or updated. So if an instructor sees a name in red, the student should not be given credit for the review. If text is in blue, then the student has not been graded for the review, so the instructor should grade it now. But there is caveat here. If the reviewer has reviewed the work but the author did not resubmit, the reviewer has nothing new to review in the latest round and should not be downgraded for not re-reviewing the work. This issue needs to be addressed.
[[File:Colorscheme.PNG]]

This is what the current color scheme looks like. The text in blue indicates that the student has not been graded, while the text in red indicates the student should not be given credits.

== '''Files Changed''' ==
* app/assets/stylesheets/redbox.scss
* app/helpers/review_mapping_helper.rb
* app/views/review_mapping/_review_report.html.erb
* app/views/popup/view_review_scores_popup.html.erb
* config/application.rb

== '''Solutions Implemented''' ==

===Issue 1: Visualization of Metrics in Review Reports===

We replaced the text given in the Metrics column with a bar chart, as shown below. The bar chart depicts the overall average of all students for this metric, the average of this student for this metric (based on each round) and the metric values for each round for this student.

====Code Changes====

* File: app/helpers/review_mapping_helper.rb
The following methods were added to calculate average for this metric for all students and for calculating maximum value for this metric. The maximum is needed for constructing bar chart. The second method was added to construct the x-axis labels in the format "0|50|100|...|max" for the bar chart.
[[File: Methods-1.JPG|center]]

* File: app/helpers/review_mapping_helper.rb
The following method constructs the bar chart.
[[File: Methods-2.JPG|center]]

* File: app/views/review_mapping/_review_report.html.erb
The following code is added to get the average metric, maximum value of metric and x-axis value from controller.
[[File: Html-1.JPG|center]]

* File: app/views/review_mapping/_review_report.html.erb
The following code includes the bar chart in the review report page.
[[File: Html-2.JPG|center]]

====Screenshots====

[[File: Metrics-result.JPG|center]]

===Issue 2: Updating Review Summary view===

We will start of by adding a title to the review summary, this summary will have the information about the reviewer.
we will span the question text to all three columns instead of it being one, also the width of the first column containing the reviewee information will be reduced appropriately.
Checkbox questions could be displayed more compactly by showing the question on the left, and then having separate column rather a than separate row for all the reviews. If the reviewer had checked a box for a particular review, the box would be checked, otherwise not.

===Issue 3===
To address the caveat mentioned above, we could use a different color, perhaps green, to distinguish reviewers who have nothing new to review as the authors have not made any changes. This is what we are planning to implement.

[[File:Colorschemeedit.png]]

== '''Test Plan''' ==
===Issue 1: Visualization of Metrics in Review Reports===

1) Login as an instructor

2) Navigate to review grader by doing this (Manage > Assignments)

3) Click on the “View review report” icon (the one with the spyglass and two people)

4) Check if the visualizations are appearing in the review report.

===Issue 2: Updates and Review Summary View ===

1) Login as an instructor

2) Navigate to review grader by doing this (Manage > Assignments)

3) Click on the “View review report” icon (the one with the spyglass and two people)

4) In the review report click on the “summary” in the row for any student.

5) Check if the changes are appearing in the page as mentioned in the proposed solution.

===Issue 3: Adding Color Schemes to Identify Updates to Review As Per Submission===

1) Login as an instructor

2) Navigate to review grader by doing this (Manage > Assignments)

3) Click on the “View review report” icon (the one with the spyglass and two people)

== '''Screencast''' ==

*

== '''References''' ==

Expertiza
* https://expertiza.ncsu.edu/

Expertiza Github
* https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza

Expertiza Documentation
* http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/Expertiza_documentation

File:Methods-2.JPG

2018-04-29T00:51:09Z

Rkalaig:

File:Methods-1.JPG

2018-04-29T00:51:03Z

Rkalaig:

File:Html-1.JPG

2018-04-29T00:50:56Z

Rkalaig:

File:Html-2.JPG

2018-04-29T00:50:48Z

Rkalaig:

File:Metrics-result.JPG

2018-04-28T23:47:25Z

Rkalaig:

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-28T23:41:22Z

Rkalaig:

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-28T23:37:33Z

Rkalaig: /* Proposed Solutions */

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T17:11:29Z

Rkalaig:

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T17:10:47Z

Rkalaig: /* Issue 2: Updating Review Summary view */

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T17:10:17Z

Rkalaig: /* Issue 1: Visualization of Metrics in Review Reports */

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T17:09:16Z

Rkalaig: /* Issue 1: Visualization of Metrics in Review Reports */

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T17:00:46Z

Rkalaig: /* References */

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T16:59:04Z

Rkalaig: /* Issue 1: Visualization of Metrics in Review Reports */

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T16:56:44Z

Rkalaig: /* Issue 1: Visualization of Metrics in Review Report */

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T16:56:19Z

Rkalaig: /* Issue 1: Visualization of Metrics in Review Reports */

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T16:54:40Z

Rkalaig: /* Issue 1: Visualization of Metrics in Review Reports */

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T16:50:34Z

Rkalaig:

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T16:49:54Z

Rkalaig: /* Issue 1: Visualization of Metrics in Review Reports */

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T16:45:38Z

Rkalaig: /* Issue 1: Visualization of Metrics in Review Reports */

File:E1815 chart.jpeg

2018-04-08T16:45:27Z

Rkalaig: uploaded a new version of "File:E1815 chart.jpeg"

File:E1815 chart.jpeg

2018-04-08T16:40:52Z

Rkalaig:

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T16:26:17Z

Rkalaig: /* Proposed Solutions */

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T16:25:47Z

Rkalaig: /* Issue 1: Visualization of Metrics in Review Reports */

File:E1815 issue1.JPG

2018-04-08T16:22:17Z

Rkalaig: uploaded a new version of "File:E1815 issue1.JPG"

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T16:18:48Z

Rkalaig: /* Issue 1: Visualization of Metrics in Review Reports */

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T16:12:43Z

Rkalaig: /* Issue 1: Visualization of Metrics in Review Reports */

File:E1815 issue1.JPG

2018-04-08T16:12:36Z

Rkalaig: uploaded a new version of "File:E1815 issue1.JPG": Reverted to version as of 16:11, 8 April 2018

File:E1815 issue1.JPG

2018-04-08T16:12:12Z

Rkalaig: uploaded a new version of "File:E1815 issue1.JPG"

File:E1815 issue1.JPG

2018-04-08T16:11:07Z

Rkalaig: uploaded a new version of "File:E1815 issue1.JPG"

File:E1815 issue1.JPG

2018-04-08T16:09:31Z

Rkalaig:

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T16:07:10Z

Rkalaig: /* Problem Statement */

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T16:06:47Z

Rkalaig: /* Introduction */

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T15:47:45Z

Rkalaig: /* Proposed Solutions */

== '''Introduction''' ==

== '''Problem Statement''' ==

===Issue 1===

===Issue 2===

===Issue 3===

== '''UML Diagram''' ==

== '''Proposed Solutions''' ==

===Issue 1===

===Issue 2===

===Issue 3===

== '''Test Plan''' ==

== '''References''' ==

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T15:47:21Z

Rkalaig: /* Problem Statement */

== '''Introduction''' ==

== '''Problem Statement''' ==

===Issue 1===

===Issue 2===

===Issue 3===

== '''UML Diagram''' ==

== '''Proposed Solutions''' ==

== '''Test Plan''' ==

== '''References''' ==

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T15:46:15Z

Rkalaig:

== '''Introduction''' ==

== '''Problem Statement''' ==

'''Issue 1'''

'''Issue 2'''

'''Issue 3'''

== '''UML Diagram''' ==

== '''Proposed Solutions''' ==

== '''Test Plan''' ==

== '''References''' ==

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T15:44:32Z

Rkalaig:

== '''Introduction''' ==

== '''Problem Statement''' ==

'''Issue 1'''

'''Issue 2'''

'''Issue 3'''

== '''UML Diagram''' ==

== '''Proposed Solution''' ==

== '''Test Plan''' ==

== '''References''' ==

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T15:44:19Z

Rkalaig:

== '''Introduction''' ==

== '''Problem Statement''' ==

''Issue 1''

''Issue 2''

''Issue 3''

== '''UML Diagram''' ==

== '''Proposed Solution''' ==

== '''Test Plan''' ==

== '''References''' ==

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T15:44:05Z

Rkalaig:

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018- Project E1815: Improvements to review grader

2018-04-08T15:40:18Z

Rkalaig: Created page with "== '''Introduction''' == == '''Problem Statement''' == == '''UML Diagram''' == == '''Proposed Solution''' == == '''Test Plan''' == == '''References''' =="

== '''Introduction''' ==

== '''Problem Statement''' ==

== '''UML Diagram''' ==

== '''Proposed Solution''' ==

== '''Test Plan''' ==

== '''References''' ==

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018 E1807 bronze score calculation

2018-03-27T02:23:31Z

Rkalaig: /* Explanation */

==Introduction==

Expertiza is an open source project based on Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows the instructor to create new courses, assignments and customize new or existing assignments. It also allows the instructor to create a list of topics the students can sign up for. Students can use the expertiza platform to form teams to work on various assignments/projects. Students can sign up for various OSS topics to work on, peer review other students submission. Students can submit their assignment in the form of URLs, upload files.

==Login Instructions==

* For Instructor, username: instructor6, password: password
* For Student, username: student7490, password: password
* For Student, username: student7495, password: password

==Problem Statement==

Sometimes when a reviewer fills out a review rubric, one or more fields can be left empty by the reviewer. While calculating the peer-reviewed score, the program is counting the empty fields as zero. However, this is not correct. The empty fields should not be counted at all, as this may affect some other metrics (like average score) of the reviewee.

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Issue.png]]

==Solution==

===Explanation===

While calculating the peer-reviewed score, the program checks whether the score is empty or not. If a score is empty, it should not be counted while calculating average score. Only not null review scores are to be counted while dividing by the total number of reviews, for the average score calculation.

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Issue-Fix.png]]

===GitHub links===

GitHub link
* https://github.com/arunkrishce/expertiza

Pull Request link
* https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1153

==Our Work==

===File Modified===

/app/models/vm_question_response_row.rb

====Explanation====

The method ‘average_score_for_row’ is used to calculate the average peer-reviewed score. We added a variable ‘no_of_columns’ to count the number of review scores that are not null. We changed the way the average score is calculated. Previously, ‘row_average_score’ was calculated by dividing by ‘@score_row.length’, where the length will include both null and not null values. Now we divide ‘row_average_score’ by ‘no_of_columns’, which does not include null scores.

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Code.JPG]]

==Testing==

===File Added===

/spec/models/vm_question_response_row_spec.rb

====Explanation====

We added a RSpec file for the class ‘VmQuestionResponseRow’ to test the method ‘average_score_for_row’. We tested the following scenarios for calculating average score:

* '''All scores are not nil'''
** This is the scenario where no fields are left empty. Average score was calculated correctly in this scenario before the issue fix. We test that the score is calculated correctly after the issue fix too.
** All not nil scores that are all zero are also tested to ensure that the output is zero.
* '''All scores are nil'''
** This test ensures that when all fields are empty or are nil, average score is also nil instead of being zero.
* '''Mixture of nil and not nil scores'''
** This test ensures that when some fields are left empty, they are not taken into consideration while calculating average score. To compute average score, the total score will be divided only by the total number of fields that are not nil.
** We tested this scenario by including or excluding zeroes in the scores and varying number of nil scores to verify correctness in average score.

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Test-1.JPG]]

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Test-2.JPG]]

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Test-Success.JPG]]

==Screencast==

* https://youtu.be/nNuqoq6qUcc

==References==

Expertiza
* https://expertiza.ncsu.edu/

Expertiza Github
* https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza

Expertiza Documentation
* http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/Expertiza_documentation

RSpec Documentation
* http://rspec.info/documentation/

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018 E1807 bronze score calculation

2018-03-27T02:20:28Z

Rkalaig:

==Introduction==

Expertiza is an open source project based on Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows the instructor to create new courses, assignments and customize new or existing assignments. It also allows the instructor to create a list of topics the students can sign up for. Students can use the expertiza platform to form teams to work on various assignments/projects. Students can sign up for various OSS topics to work on, peer review other students submission. Students can submit their assignment in the form of URLs, upload files.

==Login Instructions==

* For Instructor, username: instructor6, password: password
* For Student, username: student7490, password: password
* For Student, username: student7495, password: password

==Problem Statement==

Sometimes when a reviewer fills out a review rubric, one or more fields can be left empty by the reviewer. While calculating the peer-reviewed score, the program is counting the empty fields as zero. However, this is not correct. The empty fields should not be counted at all, as this may affect some other metrics (like average score) of the reviewee.

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Issue.png]]

==Solution==

===Explanation===

While calculating the peer-reviewed score, the program checks whether the score is empty or not. If a score is empty, it should not be counted while calculating average score. Only not null review scores are to be counted while dividing by the total number of reviews, for the average score calculation.

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Issue-Fix.png]]

===GitHub links===

GitHub link
* https://github.com/arunkrishce/expertiza

Pull Request link
* https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1153

==Our Work==

===File Modified===

/app/models/vm_question_response_row.rb

====Explanation====

The method ‘average_score_for_row’ is used to calculate the average peer-reviewed score. We added a variable ‘no_of_columns’ to count the number of review scores that are not null. We changed the way the average score is calculated. Previously, ‘row_average_score’ was calculated by dividing by ‘@score_row.length’, where the length will include both null and not null values. Now we divide ‘row_average_score’ by ‘no_of_columns’, which does not include null scores.

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Code.JPG]]

==Testing==

===File Added===

/spec/models/vm_question_response_row_spec.rb

====Explanation====

We added a RSpec file for the class ‘VmQuestionResponseRow’ to test the method ‘average_score_for_row’. We tested the following scenarios for calculating average score:

* '''All scores are not nil'''
** This is the scenario where no fields are left empty. Average score was calculated correctly in this scenario before the issue fix. We test that the score is calculated correctly after the issue fix too.
* '''All scores are nil'''
** This test ensures that when all fields are empty or are nil, average score is also nil instead of being zero.
* '''Mixture of nil and not nil scores'''
** This test ensures that when some fields are left empty, they are not taken into consideration while calculating average score. To compute average score, the total score will be divided only by the total number of fields that are not nil.

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Test-1.JPG]]

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Test-2.JPG]]

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Test-Success.JPG]]

==Screencast==

* https://youtu.be/nNuqoq6qUcc

==References==

Expertiza
* https://expertiza.ncsu.edu/

Expertiza Github
* https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza

Expertiza Documentation
* http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/Expertiza_documentation

RSpec Documentation
* http://rspec.info/documentation/

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018 E1807 bronze score calculation

2018-03-27T02:03:35Z

Rkalaig: /* Explanation */

==Introduction==

Expertiza is an open source project based on Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows the instructor to create new courses, assignments and customize new or existing assignments. It also allows the instructor to create a list of topics the students can sign up for. Students can use the expertiza platform to form teams to work on various assignments/projects. Students can sign up for various OSS topics to work on, peer review other students submission. Students can submit their assignment in the form of URLs, upload files.

==Login Instructions==

* For Instructor, username: instructor6, password: password
* For Student, username: student7490, password: password
* For Student, username: student7495, password: password

==Problem Statement==

Sometimes when a reviewer fills out a review rubric, one or more fields can be left empty by the reviewer. While calculating the peer-reviewed score, the program is counting the empty fields as zero. However, this is not correct. The empty fields should not be counted at all, as this may affect some other metrics (like average score) of the reviewee.

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Issue.png]]

==Solution==

===Explanation===

While calculating the peer-reviewed score, the program checks whether the score is empty or not. If a score is empty, it should not be counted while calculating average score. Only not null review scores are to be counted while dividing by the total number of reviews, for the average score calculation.

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Issue-Fix.png]]

===GitHub links===

GitHub link
* https://github.com/arunkrishce/expertiza

Pull Request link
* https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1153

==Our Work==

===File Modified===

/app/models/vm_question_response_row.rb

====Explanation====

The method ‘average_score_for_row’ is used to calculate the average peer-reviewed score. We added a variable ‘no_of_columns’ to count the number of review scores that are not null. We changed the way the average score is calculated. Previously, ‘row_average_score’ was calculated by dividing by ‘@score_row.length’, where the length will include both null and not null values. Now we divide ‘row_average_score’ by ‘no_of_columns’, which does not include null scores.

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Code.JPG]]

==Testing==

===File Added===

/spec/models/vm_question_response_row_spec.rb

====Explanation====

We added a RSpec file for the class ‘VmQuestionResponseRow’ to test the method ‘average_score_for_row’. We tested the following scenarios for calculating average score:

* All scores are not null and not zero
* All scores are not null and have some zeroes
* All scores are not null and are all zeroes
* Some scores are null and some scores are not null, not zero
* Some scores are null and some scores are not null, have some zeroes
* Some scores are null and some scores are not null, are all zeroes
* All scores are null

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Test-1.JPG]]

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Test-2.JPG]]

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Test-Success.JPG]]

==Screencast==

* https://youtu.be/nNuqoq6qUcc

==References==

Expertiza
* https://expertiza.ncsu.edu/

Expertiza Github
* https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza

Expertiza Documentation
* http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/Expertiza_documentation

RSpec Documentation
* http://rspec.info/documentation/

File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Test-Success.JPG

2018-03-27T02:02:41Z

Rkalaig:

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018 E1807 bronze score calculation

2018-03-27T02:00:00Z

Rkalaig: /* Explanation */

==Introduction==

Expertiza is an open source project based on Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows the instructor to create new courses, assignments and customize new or existing assignments. It also allows the instructor to create a list of topics the students can sign up for. Students can use the expertiza platform to form teams to work on various assignments/projects. Students can sign up for various OSS topics to work on, peer review other students submission. Students can submit their assignment in the form of URLs, upload files.

==Login Instructions==

* For Instructor, username: instructor6, password: password
* For Student, username: student7490, password: password
* For Student, username: student7495, password: password

==Problem Statement==

Sometimes when a reviewer fills out a review rubric, one or more fields can be left empty by the reviewer. While calculating the peer-reviewed score, the program is counting the empty fields as zero. However, this is not correct. The empty fields should not be counted at all, as this may affect some other metrics (like average score) of the reviewee.

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Issue.png]]

==Solution==

===Explanation===

While calculating the peer-reviewed score, the program checks whether the score is empty or not. If a score is empty, it should not be counted while calculating average score. Only not null review scores are to be counted while dividing by the total number of reviews, for the average score calculation.

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Issue-Fix.png]]

===GitHub links===

GitHub link
* https://github.com/arunkrishce/expertiza

Pull Request link
* https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1153

==Our Work==

===File Modified===

/app/models/vm_question_response_row.rb

====Explanation====

The method ‘average_score_for_row’ is used to calculate the average peer-reviewed score. We added a variable ‘no_of_columns’ to count the number of review scores that are not null. We changed the way the average score is calculated. Previously, ‘row_average_score’ was calculated by dividing by ‘@score_row.length’, where the length will include both null and not null values. Now we divide ‘row_average_score’ by ‘no_of_columns’, which does not include null scores.

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Code.JPG]]

==Testing==

===File Added===

/spec/models/vm_question_response_row_spec.rb

====Explanation====

We added a RSpec file for the class ‘VmQuestionResponseRow’ to test the method ‘average_score_for_row’. We tested the following scenarios for calculating average score:

* All scores are not null and not zero
* All scores are not null and have some zeroes
* All scores are not null and are all zeroes
* Some scores are null and some scores are not null, not zero
* Some scores are null and some scores are not null, have some zeroes
* Some scores are null and some scores are not null, are all zeroes
* All scores are null

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Test-1.JPG]]

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Test-2.JPG]]

==Screencast==

* https://youtu.be/nNuqoq6qUcc

==References==

Expertiza
* https://expertiza.ncsu.edu/

Expertiza Github
* https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza

Expertiza Documentation
* http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/Expertiza_documentation

RSpec Documentation
* http://rspec.info/documentation/

File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Issue-Fix.png

2018-03-27T01:59:18Z

Rkalaig:

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018 E1807 bronze score calculation

2018-03-27T01:58:49Z

Rkalaig: /* Problem Statement */

==Introduction==

Expertiza is an open source project based on Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows the instructor to create new courses, assignments and customize new or existing assignments. It also allows the instructor to create a list of topics the students can sign up for. Students can use the expertiza platform to form teams to work on various assignments/projects. Students can sign up for various OSS topics to work on, peer review other students submission. Students can submit their assignment in the form of URLs, upload files.

==Login Instructions==

* For Instructor, username: instructor6, password: password
* For Student, username: student7490, password: password
* For Student, username: student7495, password: password

==Problem Statement==

Sometimes when a reviewer fills out a review rubric, one or more fields can be left empty by the reviewer. While calculating the peer-reviewed score, the program is counting the empty fields as zero. However, this is not correct. The empty fields should not be counted at all, as this may affect some other metrics (like average score) of the reviewee.

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Issue.png]]

==Solution==

===Explanation===

While calculating the peer-reviewed score, the program checks whether the score is empty or not. If a score is empty, it should not be counted while calculating average score. Only not null review scores are to be counted while dividing by the total number of reviews, for the average score calculation.

ADD SCREENSHOT

===GitHub links===

GitHub link
* https://github.com/arunkrishce/expertiza

Pull Request link
* https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1153

==Our Work==

===File Modified===

/app/models/vm_question_response_row.rb

====Explanation====

The method ‘average_score_for_row’ is used to calculate the average peer-reviewed score. We added a variable ‘no_of_columns’ to count the number of review scores that are not null. We changed the way the average score is calculated. Previously, ‘row_average_score’ was calculated by dividing by ‘@score_row.length’, where the length will include both null and not null values. Now we divide ‘row_average_score’ by ‘no_of_columns’, which does not include null scores.

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Code.JPG]]

==Testing==

===File Added===

/spec/models/vm_question_response_row_spec.rb

====Explanation====

We added a RSpec file for the class ‘VmQuestionResponseRow’ to test the method ‘average_score_for_row’. We tested the following scenarios for calculating average score:

* All scores are not null and not zero
* All scores are not null and have some zeroes
* All scores are not null and are all zeroes
* Some scores are null and some scores are not null, not zero
* Some scores are null and some scores are not null, have some zeroes
* Some scores are null and some scores are not null, are all zeroes
* All scores are null

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Test-1.JPG]]

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Test-2.JPG]]

==Screencast==

* https://youtu.be/nNuqoq6qUcc

==References==

Expertiza
* https://expertiza.ncsu.edu/

Expertiza Github
* https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza

Expertiza Documentation
* http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/Expertiza_documentation

RSpec Documentation
* http://rspec.info/documentation/

File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Issue.png

2018-03-27T01:58:37Z

Rkalaig: OSS Project Bronze Issue

OSS Project Bronze Issue

CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2018 E1807 bronze score calculation

2018-03-27T01:52:51Z

Rkalaig: /* Explanation */

==Introduction==

Expertiza is an open source project based on Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows the instructor to create new courses, assignments and customize new or existing assignments. It also allows the instructor to create a list of topics the students can sign up for. Students can use the expertiza platform to form teams to work on various assignments/projects. Students can sign up for various OSS topics to work on, peer review other students submission. Students can submit their assignment in the form of URLs, upload files.

==Login Instructions==

* For Instructor, username: instructor6, password: password
* For Student, username: student7490, password: password
* For Student, username: student7495, password: password

==Problem Statement==

Sometimes when a reviewer fills out a review rubric, one or more fields can be left empty by the reviewer. While calculating the peer-reviewed score, the program is counting the empty fields as zero. However, this is not correct. The empty fields should not be counted at all, as this may affect some other metrics (like average score) of the reviewee.

[[File:1807_error.png]]

==Solution==

===Explanation===

While calculating the peer-reviewed score, the program checks whether the score is empty or not. If a score is empty, it should not be counted while calculating average score. Only not null review scores are to be counted while dividing by the total number of reviews, for the average score calculation.

ADD SCREENSHOT

===GitHub links===

GitHub link
* https://github.com/arunkrishce/expertiza

Pull Request link
* https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1153

==Our Work==

===File Modified===

/app/models/vm_question_response_row.rb

====Explanation====

The method ‘average_score_for_row’ is used to calculate the average peer-reviewed score. We added a variable ‘no_of_columns’ to count the number of review scores that are not null. We changed the way the average score is calculated. Previously, ‘row_average_score’ was calculated by dividing by ‘@score_row.length’, where the length will include both null and not null values. Now we divide ‘row_average_score’ by ‘no_of_columns’, which does not include null scores.

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Code.JPG]]

==Testing==

===File Added===

/spec/models/vm_question_response_row_spec.rb

====Explanation====

We added a RSpec file for the class ‘VmQuestionResponseRow’ to test the method ‘average_score_for_row’. We tested the following scenarios for calculating average score:

* All scores are not null and not zero
* All scores are not null and have some zeroes
* All scores are not null and are all zeroes
* Some scores are null and some scores are not null, not zero
* Some scores are null and some scores are not null, have some zeroes
* Some scores are null and some scores are not null, are all zeroes
* All scores are null

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Test-1.JPG]]

[[File:OSS-Project-Bronze-Test-2.JPG]]

==Screencast==

* https://youtu.be/nNuqoq6qUcc

==References==

Expertiza
* https://expertiza.ncsu.edu/

Expertiza Github
* https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza

Expertiza Documentation
* http://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php/Expertiza_documentation

RSpec Documentation
* http://rspec.info/documentation/