Expertiza_Wiki - User contributions [en]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-12-05T17:41:24Z

Rrajan3: /* References & Related Links */

== '''Project Introduction & Motivation''' ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

The primary motivation behind this project is to give the students to review the projects of their peers effortlessly and fix all the issues of the previous implementation.

== '''Description of Project''' ==
Expertiza Project : E1864 ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues in the current Expertiza Version related to reviewing student work. Issues are centered around peer reviewing and assignment feature calibration. The motivation behind this project is to identify and resolve each bug in an attempt to improve the current system version. The project has been divided into required fixes. Four of the five problems are presented in ''Figure 1 - Application Flow Diagram'' below. This image is a general representation describing when each of the issues is encountered during a user session. Problem 5 (Issue # 1142) is not present in this figure as the problem is simply associated with the coding of a view file and not directly connected to the flow of students and reviews. Additional discussion on proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained in subsequent sections.

:::::[[File:FlowDiagram.PNG]]
::::::'''Figure 1 - Application Flow Diagram'''
::::::-----------------------------------------------

== '''UML diagram for reviw''' ==

:::::[[File:fig2_uml.PNG]]
'''Actors''':

:*Instructor - This actor is responsible for creating assignments and adding students to the assignment.
:*Student - This actor is responsible for submitting, reviewing other students work.

'''Database''':

:*The database where all the data of Expertiza is getting stored.

== '''Problem Statements & Descriptions''' ==

For this project, we have been asked to fix the follow bugs that have been found in the current Expertiza system :
=== Problem 1 : Issue #1093 ===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''
:*Example : The project name for which the review was performed earlier should not appear for the next list of reviews when a student requests a review to perform. This could lead to students reviewing the same project more than once and the requirement is to review different projects each time.

:::::[[File:Fig_3.PNG]]

'''Steps to reproduce the Issue #1093:'''
Figure 1 gives the holistic view on stages in which we see the issues. In this part, we will discuss the exact steps that need to be followed to reproduce the bugs.
:* Login as Instructor Create new assignment and associate to the course as shown in Figure 4
:* Add a participant to the assignment. there are two ways to do this in bulk first way is importing all the course participants to assignment . second approach is creating a file containing student details and import them to expertiza
:* Create topics and teams in expertiza either entering them one by one or from the file
:* In actual implementation topic association to the teams involves bidding process but for ease of use, we let instructor assign the topic (Figure 5). set min and max number of reviews allowed as shown in
:* Set the rubrics and number of review rounds (min one round is needed) (Figure 6)
:* Review assignment should be automatic not instructor controlled(scope of the stated issue is here) as shown in Figure 7
:* Set the deadlines for submission and review (shown in Figure 8)
:* Login as a student and submit work(this needs to be done for each team), request for review
:* If the issue persist system assign the same topic to review multiple times(as shown in Figure2).difficulty with this problem is that its reproducibility factor which is very low.

:::::[[File:p1_p1.PNG]]
:::::[[File:p1_p2.PNG]]

=== Problem 2 : Issue # 1097 ===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''
:*Example : When the reviewer submits a review for a project, the reviewer cannot edit/ update his review again. Before submitting it says "Once submitted, the review cannot be changed again". After clicking yes the reviewer is only able to view his reviews and not update even before the deadline.
This situation can occur in the following scenario. When a reviewer submits the review-1 a few minutes after the deadline, the rubric for review 2 occurs. So the review done for the first round actually becomes review for round 2. Hence the reviewer would not be able to update this review. In situations like these, updating the submitted review becomes useful.

Steps to reproduce the issue:
*Initial steps to reproduce this problem is same as the issue #1093
*Change the deadlines for the review to a few days after the present date and check if you are able to update the review. The picture shows deadline to submit is after 14 days. But the reviews are only able to be viewed.
:::::[[File:p2_p1_redo.PNG]]
:::::[[File:p2_p2_redo.PNG]]

=== Problem 3 : Issue # 1029 ===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''
:*Example : An author of a project has submitted his/her assignment to Expertiza. When a reviewer tries to review the work, sometimes it happens that the system shows the reviewer that the work has not been submitted yet. The reviewer should have been shown the work of the author to review.

'''Steps to reproduce the Issue #1029:'''
:* steps to reproduce this issue is similar to issue #1093, only the difference is once reviewer requests the assignment to review system throws a message saying there is no work has been submitted even though there is actually submitted work. This issue is not always reproducible

=== Problem 4 : Issue # 972 ===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''
:*Example : An instructor attempts to edit an existing assignment and change the number of review rounds. The reassignment causes an error in the system and this prevents the project update to occur.
'''Steps to reproduce the Issue #972 :'''
:*The [https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/issues/972 Github Bug Report] states that ''"You can change the # of rounds from 1 to 2. You can then change the # of rounds back to 1, and the assignment will appear to be saved with one round of review. But if you edit it again, the 2 rounds will still be present."'' Several attempts to reproduce this issue were made. Below are two of such test cases.
::- '''Test Case 1''' : Increment beyond current number of rounds then decrements back to the original assigned number of rounds for an existing assignment.
:::*Step 1 - Log in as ''instructor6''
:::*Step 2 - Go to the ''Manage Courses'' page and select - ''CSC 517 Spring 2015''
:::*Step 3 - Select the ''Edit'' option for - ''Final projects''
:::*Step 4 - Select the ''due dates'' tab as seen in figure 12
:::*Step 5a - Change the number of rounds from 2 to 3
:::*Step 6 - Press the ''Set'' option
:::*Step 7a - Select ''Save''

:::::[[File:fig12_p4_redo.PNG]]
:::::[[File:fig13_p4.PNG]]

:::- One can see from Figure 13 that the change in round number is successfully updated and reflected in the tab. To ensure that the assignment was saved correctly, logging out of the user session, steps 1 - 4 were repeated and the previous changes were found to persist.

:::*Step 5b - Change the number of rounds from 3 back to 2
:::*Step 6 - Press the ''Set'' option
:::*Step 7b - Select ''Save''

:::::[[File:fig14_p4.PNG]]

:::- One can see from Figure 14 that the change in round number is successfully updated and reflected in the tab. To ensure that the assignment was saved correctly, logging out of the user session, steps 1 - 4 were repeated and the previous changes were found to persist.

::- '''Test Case 2''' : Decrement below current number of rounds an existing assignment with submissions.
:::*Step 1 - Log in as ''instructor6''
:::*Step 2 - Go to the ''Manage Courses'' page and select - ''CSC 517 Spring 2016''
:::*Step 3 - Select the ''Edit'' option for - ''Program 1: Class portal''
:::*Step 4 - Select the ''due dates'' tab as seen in figure 12
:::*Step 5a - Change the number of rounds from 2 to 1
:::*Step 6 - Press the ''Set'' option
:::*Step 7 - Confirm the reduction below the current number of rounds
:::*Step 8 - Press ''OK'' to exit the notification popup
::::''Addition steps 6-8 can be seen in Figure 15 below.''
:::*Step 7a - Select ''Save''

:::::[[File:fig15_p4.PNG]]
:::::[[File:fig16_p4.PNG]]

:::- One can see from Figure 16 that the change in round number is successfully updated and reflected in the tab. To ensure that the assignment was saved correctly, logging out of the user session, steps 1 - 4 were repeated and the previous changes were found to persist.

:*Several similar tests were conducted in an attempt to reproduce this issue; however, none were successful.
:*'''Unstated Issue''': there is an issue that arises from the reduction of rounds for assignments that currently contain submissions. After the udpate, When an current student attempts to go and review his/her scores, this causes a ''NoMethodError in Grades#view_team''. A bug should be created for this issue for another round of project issues.

=== Problem 5 : Issue # 1142 ===
:*''“Summary Result Assignment” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''
:*Example : As seen in Figure 17 below, the result of hovering over a review result displays the message in raw HTML. The intended result is for review comment to be rendered properly while displaying.

:::::[[File:fig_17_p5.PNG]]
::::::''Figure 17 was taken from the actual deployed version of Expertiza through a person student account.''

::-'''Test Case 1''' : Hover for Reviewer Comment
:::*Step 1 - Log in as instructor6
:::*Step 2 - Select ''Manage'' and ''Impersonate User''
:::*Step 3 - Impersonate ''student6370''
:::*Step 4 - Selec ''OSS project/Writing assignment 2''
:::*Step 5 - Hover over any underlined review score

:::::[[File:fig_18_p5.PNG]]
::::::''Figure 18 was taken from the development version of Expertiza through the test case steps mentioned above.''

:*After testing and research into this issue, it has been determined that the issue has been adjusted in the development image and has not yet been merged with the deployed version.

== '''Files to be Modified''' ==

:*''app/views/student_review/_responses.html.erb''
:*''app/views/response/response.html.erb''
:*''app/controllers/response_controller.rb''
:*''spec/controllers/response_controller_spec.rb''
:*''spec/features/assignment_round_adjustment.rb''

== '''Solution Design''' ==
=== Problem 1 : Issue # 1093 ===
:* Several attempts have been made to reproduce this problem. We tested with both old and latest database but the issue did not reproduce.
:* We also tried with creating a new assignment, adding participants to the assignment, assign reviews to the student then logging in as student and request for a topic to review even with this issue did not reproduce
:* After discussing with mentor and Dr.Gehringer we are marking this issue as not reproducible

=== Problem 2 : Issue # 1097 ===
:*To solve this problem we will edit code in ''app/views/student_review/_responses.html.erb'', ''app/views/response/response.html.erb'', and ''app/controllers/response_controller.rb'' to enable a reviewer to update the review until the round deadline. We will also remove the confirmation message "Once submitted, it cannot be changed again" before the deadline to appropriate reflect this edit.
:*Once these changes have been made, the new view will be reflected as seen in the figure below.

:::::[[File: P2 sol.PNG]]
:::::-The reviewer now has the option to both view and update their submitted reviews multiple times before the round deadline This is in contrast to the previous build where the reviewer could only 'view' their submission.

:'''1)''' ''app/views/student_review/_responses.html.erb'' - added a condition such that a user is allowed to update a review even after submission.
<pre>
<% if (last_response_round == current_round)%>
<td>
<% if (!@latest_response.is_submitted) %>
<%= link_to "Edit", {:controller => 'response', :action => 'edit', :id => @latest_response.id} %>
<%end%>
</td>
<% else %>
<td>
<%= link_to "Update", {:controller => 'response', :action => 'new', :id => map.map_id} %>
</td>
<% end %>
</pre>

<pre>
<% if (last_response_round == current_round)%>
<td>
<% if (!@latest_response.is_submitted) %>
<%= link_to "Edit", {:controller => 'response', :action => 'edit', :id => @latest_response.id} %>
<% else %>
<%= link_to "Update", {:controller => 'response', :action => 'edit', :id => @latest_response.id} %>
<%end%>
</td>
<% else %>
<td>
<%= link_to "Update", {:controller => 'response', :action => 'new', :id => map.map_id} %>
</td>
<% end %>
</pre>

:'''2)''' ''app/views/response/response.html.erb'' - update confirmation message

<pre>
if(!confirm('Once a review has been submitted, you cannot edit it again')){
e.preventDefault();
e.stopPropagation();
return;
}else{
jQuery('#isSubmit').val('Yes');
window.location.href= "../../../student_review/list?id=<%= @map.reviewer.id %>";
}
</pre>

<pre>
if(!confirm('Are you sure you would like to Submit?')){
e.preventDefault();
e.stopPropagation();
return;
}else{
jQuery('#isSubmit').val('Yes');
window.location.href= "../../../student_review/list?id=<%= @map.reviewer.id %>";
}
</pre>

:'''3)''' ''app/controllers/response_controller.rb'' - commented out line 14 that returned false if the response was submitted because we no longer need the value of this attribute
<pre>
when 'edit' # If response has been submitted, no further editing allowed
return false if response.is_submitted
return current_user_id?(user_id)
# Deny access to anyone except reviewer & author's team
</pre>
<pre>
when 'edit' # If response has been submitted, no further editing allowed
#return false if response.is_submitted
return current_user_id?(user_id)
# Deny access to anyone except reviewer & author's team
</pre>

:*Required Updates to ''spec/controllers/response_controller_spec.rb''
::- The test to verify the restricted nature of editing a submitted review was removed as this restriction no longer applies. This testcase can be found on line 33 of the rspec test file.

=== Problem 3 : Issue # 1029 ===
:*As no attempt to reproduce this issue were not successful, After discussing with Dr.Gehringer we realized that issue is not reproducible. Hence marking this issue as not reproducible

=== Problem 4 : Issue # 972 ===
:* As no attempts to reproduce the stated issue were successful, no solution to this problem can be proposed. In the [https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/issues/972 Github Bug Report] there is a reference to a similar [https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1033 Github Bug Report] that encompasses this same issue that has been marked ''closed''. For the purposed of this project, testing of this believed fix in the ''update_feedback_assignment_form_attributes'' function of assignments_controller.rb will be tested to ensure correctness. This test has been added to the ''features'' spec folder of Expertiza as ''expertiza/spec/features/assignment_round_adjustment_spec.rb''. A video capture of this feature test has been included in the ''References & Related Links'' section of this wiki.

=== Problem 5 : Issue # 1142 ===
:* As no attempts to reproduce the stated issue were successful, no solution to this problem can be proposed. Upon further exploration of the view file ''view_team.html.erb'', it was found that a [https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/commit/bc09d3d6e2e4572614549a6b35161b65b9850df6#diff-4206b1581c5808c1e3148c42f7ef46f8 patch] was introduced to fix this bug by assuring that the html was rendered safely.Because this bug was already fixed prior to the distribution of our project, no further action is needed to address the issue. This action has been confirmed by Dr. Gehringer on Novemebr 27,2018. A video capture of this manual test has been included in the ''References & Related Links'' section of this wiki.

== '''Testing Plan''' ==
''Testing Plan will be implemented upon the discovery of fixed bugs described in the project document as a means of verifying the fix.''

To ensure correctness of bug fixes following test plan was implemented:
:* Problem 1 : Issue #1093
::- ''No Testing Required - Bug not Reproducible''
:* Problem 2 : Issue #1097
::- Verify that upon submission of the review, the reviewer maintains an option to "update" the review until review deadline ends
:* Problem 3 : Issue #1029
::- ''No Testing Required - Bug not Reproducible''
:* Problem 4 : Issue #927
::- Verify assignment holds the number of review rounds value
::- Verify that the increasing number of review rounds after creating the assignment saves successfully and the new value is retained
::- Verify that the decreasing number of review rounds after creating the assignment saves successfully and the new value is retained
:* Problem 5 : Issue #1142
::- Verify that when user views score review comments rendered as processed HTML only(there should not be any rendered HTML tags)
:
:* The setup for testing both problems 2 & 5 is complex as there are many necessary associations and procedures that are required to achieve the appropriate testing state. Assuming that a sufficient setup is achieved, a feature test for Issue 2 would simulate logging in as a student, visiting the ''Others Work'' page and submitting a review submission which would allow for the verification that an option to update his or her review is available, upon returning to the student assignment page. Further, a feature test for Issue 5 would simulate logging in as a student, visiting the ''Your Scores'' page, where he or she would be able to hover over a response link to validate the comment rendering.
:* The follow is a list of several suitable models and possible relationships:
::- Models:
:::* Course
:::* Assignment
:::* Assignment_Mapping
:::* Response Questionnaire
:::* Review_Mapping
:::* Response
:::* Team
:::* Topic
:::* Participants - reviewer & reviewee
:::* Submission
::- Relationships:
:::* A course must contain participants and assignments
:::* An assignment must be associated with participants and response questionnaires
:::* A response questionnaire must be associated with participants and responses
:::* It is also required that a reviewee submit an assignment to then be reviewed by a reviewer.

== '''References & Related Links''' ==

:*Accompanying Videos for Issues and Testing:
::-[Problem 1 : Issue #1093]: Replication Attempts <-- insert video link here
::-[https://youtu.be/9G1KWT5ohOM Problem 2 : Issue #1097]: Run of Manual Test
::-[Problem 3 : Issue #1029]: Replication Attempts <-- insert video link here
::-[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wfurtDj8UuyjSyutFJmLptlyoz56p7jv/view?usp=sharing Problem 4 : Issue #927]: Run of Feature Test
::-[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1laFnMFBoTznsQ2QSh5TJfp7R5KQd6kuf/view?usp=sharing Problem 5 : Issue #1142]: Run of Manual Test
:*Project Links
::-Project Screencast <-- insert video link here
::-[https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1312# Pull request]
::-[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit# Project Document]
::-[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaUOA2WLsOY&list=PLfg44kGPNXFMb72Wnb9BD81h3HHYZDvjJ/edit# Tutorial videos on creating assignments]
::-[https://github.com/Manjunath-gaonkar/expertiza GitHub]: Forked Repository

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-12-05T08:00:58Z

Rrajan3: /* References & Related Links */

== '''Project Introduction & Motivation''' ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

The primary motivation behind this project is to give the students to review the projects of their peers effortlessly and fix all the issues of the previous implementation.

== '''Description of Project''' ==
Expertiza Project : E1864 ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues in the current Expertiza Version related to reviewing student work. Issues are centered around peer reviewing and assignment feature calibration. The motivation behind this project is to identify and resolve each bug in an attempt to improve the current system version. The project has been divided into required fixes. Four of the five problems are presented in ''Figure 1 - Application Flow Diagram'' below. This image is a general representation describing when each of the issues is encountered during a user session. Problem 5 (Issue # 1142) is not present in this figure as the problem is simply associated with the coding of a view file and not directly connected to the flow of students and reviews. Additional discussion on proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained in subsequent sections.

:::::[[File:FlowDiagram.PNG]]
::::::'''Figure 1 - Application Flow Diagram'''
::::::-----------------------------------------------

== '''UML diagram for reviw''' ==

:::::[[File:fig2_uml.PNG]]
'''Actors''':

:*Instructor - This actor is responsible for creating assignments and adding students to the assignment.
:*Student - This actor is responsible for submitting, reviewing other students work.

'''Database''':

:*The database where all the data of Expertiza is getting stored.

== '''Problem Statements & Descriptions''' ==

For this project, we have been asked to fix the follow bugs that have been found in the current Expertiza system :
=== Problem 1 : Issue #1093 ===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''
:*Example : The project name for which the review was performed earlier should not appear for the next list of reviews when a student requests a review to perform. This could lead to students reviewing the same project more than once and the requirement is to review different projects each time.

:::::[[File:Fig_3.PNG]]

'''Steps to reproduce the Issue #1093:'''
Figure 1 gives the holistic view on stages in which we see the issues. In this part, we will discuss the exact steps that need to be followed to reproduce the bugs.
:* Login as Instructor Create new assignment and associate to the course as shown in Figure 4
:* Add a participant to the assignment. there are two ways to do this in bulk first way is importing all the course participants to assignment . second approach is creating a file containing student details and import them to expertiza
:* Create topics and teams in expertiza either entering them one by one or from the file
:* In actual implementation topic association to the teams involves bidding process but for ease of use, we let instructor assign the topic (Figure 5). set min and max number of reviews allowed as shown in
:* Set the rubrics and number of review rounds (min one round is needed) (Figure 6)
:* Review assignment should be automatic not instructor controlled(scope of the stated issue is here) as shown in Figure 7
:* Set the deadlines for submission and review (shown in Figure 8)
:* Login as a student and submit work(this needs to be done for each team), request for review
:* If the issue persist system assign the same topic to review multiple times(as shown in Figure2).difficulty with this problem is that its reproducibility factor which is very low.

:::::[[File:p1_p1.PNG]]
:::::[[File:p1_p2.PNG]]

=== Problem 2 : Issue # 1097 ===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''
:*Example : When the reviewer submits a review for a project, the reviewer cannot edit/ update his review again. Before submitting it says "Once submitted, the review cannot be changed again". After clicking yes the reviewer is only able to view his reviews and not update even before the deadline.
This situation can occur in the following scenario. When a reviewer submits the review-1 a few minutes after the deadline, the rubric for review 2 occurs. So the review done for the first round actually becomes review for round 2. Hence the reviewer would not be able to update this review. In situations like these, updating the submitted review becomes useful.

Steps to reproduce the issue:
*Initial steps to reproduce this problem is same as the issue #1093
*Change the deadlines for the review to a few days after the present date and check if you are able to update the review. The picture shows deadline to submit is after 14 days. But the reviews are only able to be viewed.
:::::[[File:p2_p1_redo.PNG]]
:::::[[File:p2_p2_redo.PNG]]

=== Problem 3 : Issue # 1029 ===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''
:*Example : An author of a project has submitted his/her assignment to Expertiza. When a reviewer tries to review the work, sometimes it happens that the system shows the reviewer that the work has not been submitted yet. The reviewer should have been shown the work of the author to review.

'''Steps to reproduce the Issue #1029:'''
:* steps to reproduce this issue is similar to issue #1093, only the difference is once reviewer requests the assignment to review system throws a message saying there is no work has been submitted even though there is actually submitted work. This issue is not always reproducible

=== Problem 4 : Issue # 972 ===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''
:*Example : An instructor attempts to edit an existing assignment and change the number of review rounds. The reassignment causes an error in the system and this prevents the project update to occur.
'''Steps to reproduce the Issue #972 :'''
:*The [https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/issues/972 Github Bug Report] states that ''"You can change the # of rounds from 1 to 2. You can then change the # of rounds back to 1, and the assignment will appear to be saved with one round of review. But if you edit it again, the 2 rounds will still be present."'' Several attempts to reproduce this issue were made. Below are two of such test cases.
::- '''Test Case 1''' : Increment beyond current number of rounds then decrements back to the original assigned number of rounds for an existing assignment.
:::*Step 1 - Log in as ''instructor6''
:::*Step 2 - Go to the ''Manage Courses'' page and select - ''CSC 517 Spring 2015''
:::*Step 3 - Select the ''Edit'' option for - ''Final projects''
:::*Step 4 - Select the ''due dates'' tab as seen in figure 12
:::*Step 5a - Change the number of rounds from 2 to 3
:::*Step 6 - Press the ''Set'' option
:::*Step 7a - Select ''Save''

:::::[[File:fig12_p4_redo.PNG]]
:::::[[File:fig13_p4.PNG]]

:::- One can see from Figure 13 that the change in round number is successfully updated and reflected in the tab. To ensure that the assignment was saved correctly, logging out of the user session, steps 1 - 4 were repeated and the previous changes were found to persist.

:::*Step 5b - Change the number of rounds from 3 back to 2
:::*Step 6 - Press the ''Set'' option
:::*Step 7b - Select ''Save''

:::::[[File:fig14_p4.PNG]]

:::- One can see from Figure 14 that the change in round number is successfully updated and reflected in the tab. To ensure that the assignment was saved correctly, logging out of the user session, steps 1 - 4 were repeated and the previous changes were found to persist.

::- '''Test Case 2''' : Decrement below current number of rounds an existing assignment with submissions.
:::*Step 1 - Log in as ''instructor6''
:::*Step 2 - Go to the ''Manage Courses'' page and select - ''CSC 517 Spring 2016''
:::*Step 3 - Select the ''Edit'' option for - ''Program 1: Class portal''
:::*Step 4 - Select the ''due dates'' tab as seen in figure 12
:::*Step 5a - Change the number of rounds from 2 to 1
:::*Step 6 - Press the ''Set'' option
:::*Step 7 - Confirm the reduction below the current number of rounds
:::*Step 8 - Press ''OK'' to exit the notification popup
::::''Addition steps 6-8 can be seen in Figure 15 below.''
:::*Step 7a - Select ''Save''

:::::[[File:fig15_p4.PNG]]
:::::[[File:fig16_p4.PNG]]

:::- One can see from Figure 16 that the change in round number is successfully updated and reflected in the tab. To ensure that the assignment was saved correctly, logging out of the user session, steps 1 - 4 were repeated and the previous changes were found to persist.

:*Several similar tests were conducted in an attempt to reproduce this issue; however, none were successful.
:*'''Unstated Issue''': there is an issue that arises from the reduction of rounds for assignments that currently contain submissions. After the udpate, When an current student attempts to go and review his/her scores, this causes a ''NoMethodError in Grades#view_team''. A bug should be created for this issue for another round of project issues.

=== Problem 5 : Issue # 1142 ===
:*''“Summary Result Assignment” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''
:*Example : As seen in Figure 17 below, the result of hovering over a review result displays the message in raw HTML. The intended result is for review comment to be rendered properly while displaying.

:::::[[File:fig_17_p5.PNG]]
::::::''Figure 17 was taken from the actual deployed version of Expertiza through a person student account.''

::-'''Test Case 1''' : Hover for Reviewer Comment
:::*Step 1 - Log in as instructor6
:::*Step 2 - Select ''Manage'' and ''Impersonate User''
:::*Step 3 - Impersonate ''student6370''
:::*Step 4 - Selec ''OSS project/Writing assignment 2''
:::*Step 5 - Hover over any underlined review score

:::::[[File:fig_18_p5.PNG]]
::::::''Figure 18 was taken from the development version of Expertiza through the test case steps mentioned above.''

:*After testing and research into this issue, it has been determined that the issue has been adjusted in the development image and has not yet been merged with the deployed version.

== '''Files to be Modified''' ==

:*''app/views/student_review/_responses.html.erb''
:*''app/views/response/response.html.erb''
:*''app/controllers/response_controller.rb''
:*''spec/controllers/response_controller_spec.rb''
:*''spec/features/assignment_round_adjustment.rb''

== '''Solution Design''' ==
=== Problem 1 : Issue # 1093 ===
:* Several attempts have been made to reproduce this problem. We tested with both old and latest database but the issue did not reproduce.
:* We also tried with creating a new assignment, adding participants to the assignment, assign reviews to the student then logging in as student and request for a topic to review even with this issue did not reproduce
:* After discussing with mentor and Dr.Gehringer we are marking this issue as not reproducible

=== Problem 2 : Issue # 1097 ===
:*To solve this problem we will edit code in ''app/views/student_review/_responses.html.erb'', ''app/views/response/response.html.erb'', and ''app/controllers/response_controller.rb'' to enable a reviewer to update the review until the round deadline. We will also remove the confirmation message "Once submitted, it cannot be changed again" before the deadline to appropriate reflect this edit.
:*Once these changes have been made, the new view will be reflected as seen in the figure below.

:::::[[File: P2 sol.PNG]]
:::::-The reviewer now has the option to both view and update their submitted reviews multiple times before the round deadline This is in contrast to the previous build where the reviewer could only 'view' their submission.

:'''1)''' ''app/views/student_review/_responses.html.erb'' - added a condition such that a user is allowed to update a review even after submission.
<pre>
<% if (last_response_round == current_round)%>
<td>
<% if (!@latest_response.is_submitted) %>
<%= link_to "Edit", {:controller => 'response', :action => 'edit', :id => @latest_response.id} %>
<%end%>
</td>
<% else %>
<td>
<%= link_to "Update", {:controller => 'response', :action => 'new', :id => map.map_id} %>
</td>
<% end %>
</pre>

<pre>
<% if (last_response_round == current_round)%>
<td>
<% if (!@latest_response.is_submitted) %>
<%= link_to "Edit", {:controller => 'response', :action => 'edit', :id => @latest_response.id} %>
<% else %>
<%= link_to "Update", {:controller => 'response', :action => 'edit', :id => @latest_response.id} %>
<%end%>
</td>
<% else %>
<td>
<%= link_to "Update", {:controller => 'response', :action => 'new', :id => map.map_id} %>
</td>
<% end %>
</pre>

:'''2)''' ''app/views/response/response.html.erb'' - update confirmation message

<pre>
if(!confirm('Once a review has been submitted, you cannot edit it again')){
e.preventDefault();
e.stopPropagation();
return;
}else{
jQuery('#isSubmit').val('Yes');
window.location.href= "../../../student_review/list?id=<%= @map.reviewer.id %>";
}
</pre>

<pre>
if(!confirm('Are you sure you would like to Submit?')){
e.preventDefault();
e.stopPropagation();
return;
}else{
jQuery('#isSubmit').val('Yes');
window.location.href= "../../../student_review/list?id=<%= @map.reviewer.id %>";
}
</pre>

:'''3)''' ''app/controllers/response_controller.rb'' - commented out line 14 that returned false if the response was submitted because we no longer need the value of this attribute
<pre>
when 'edit' # If response has been submitted, no further editing allowed
return false if response.is_submitted
return current_user_id?(user_id)
# Deny access to anyone except reviewer & author's team
</pre>
<pre>
when 'edit' # If response has been submitted, no further editing allowed
#return false if response.is_submitted
return current_user_id?(user_id)
# Deny access to anyone except reviewer & author's team
</pre>

:*Required Updates to ''spec/controllers/response_controller_spec.rb''
::- The test to verify the restricted nature of editing a submitted review was removed as this restriction no longer applies. This testcase can be found on line 33 of the rspec test file.

=== Problem 3 : Issue # 1029 ===
:*As no attempt to reproduce this issue were not successful, After discussing with Dr.Gehringer we realized that issue is not reproducible. Hence marking this issue as not reproducible

=== Problem 4 : Issue # 972 ===
:* As no attempts to reproduce the stated issue were successful, no solution to this problem can be proposed. In the [https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/issues/972 Github Bug Report] there is a reference to a similar [https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1033 Github Bug Report] that encompasses this same issue that has been marked ''closed''. For the purposed of this project, testing of this believed fix in the ''update_feedback_assignment_form_attributes'' function of assignments_controller.rb will be tested to ensure correctness. This test has been added to the ''features'' spec folder of Expertiza as ''expertiza/spec/features/assignment_round_adjustment_spec.rb''. A video capture of this feature test has been included in the ''References & Related Links'' section of this wiki.

=== Problem 5 : Issue # 1142 ===
:* As no attempts to reproduce the stated issue were successful, no solution to this problem can be proposed. Upon further exploration of the view file ''view_team.html.erb'', it was found that a [https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/commit/bc09d3d6e2e4572614549a6b35161b65b9850df6#diff-4206b1581c5808c1e3148c42f7ef46f8 patch] was introduced to fix this bug by assuring that the html was rendered safely.Because this bug was already fixed prior to the distribution of our project, no further action is needed to address the issue. This action has been confirmed by Dr. Gehringer on Novemebr 27,2018. A video capture of this manual test has been included in the ''References & Related Links'' section of this wiki.

== '''Testing Plan''' ==
''Testing Plan will be implemented upon the discovery of fixed bugs described in the project document as a means of verifying the fix.''

To ensure correctness of bug fixes following test plan was implemented:
:* Problem 1 : Issue #1093
::- ''No Testing Required - Bug not Reproducible''
:* Problem 2 : Issue #1097
::- Verify that upon submission of the review, the reviewer maintains an option to "update" the review until review deadline ends
:* Problem 3 : Issue #1029
::- ''No Testing Required - Bug not Reproducible''
:* Problem 4 : Issue #927
::- Verify assignment holds the number of review rounds value
::- Verify that the increasing number of review rounds after creating the assignment saves successfully and the new value is retained
::- Verify that the decreasing number of review rounds after creating the assignment saves successfully and the new value is retained
:* Problem 5 : Issue #1142
::- Verify that when user views score review comments rendered as processed HTML only(there should not be any rendered HTML tags)
:
:* The setup for testing both problems 2 & 5 is complex as there are many necessary associations and procedures that are required to achieve the appropriate testing state. Assuming that a sufficient setup is achieved, a feature test for Issue 2 would simulate logging in as a student, visiting the ''Others Work'' page and submitting a review submission which would allow for the verification that an option to update his or her review is available, upon returning to the student assignment page. Further, a feature test for Issue 5 would simulate logging in as a student, visiting the ''Your Scores'' page, where he or she would be able to hover over a response link to validate the comment rendering.
:* The follow is a list of several suitable models and possible relationships:
::- Models:
:::* Course
:::* Assignment
:::* Assignment_Mapping
:::* Response Questionnaire
:::* Review_Mapping
:::* Response
:::* Team
:::* Topic
:::* Participants - reviewer & reviewee
:::* Submission
::- Relationships:
:::* A course must contain participants and assignments
:::* An assignment must be associated with participants and response questionnaires
:::* A response questionnaire must be associated with participants and responses
:::* It is also required that a reviewee submit an assignment to then be reviewed by a reviewer.

== '''References & Related Links''' ==

:*Accompanying Videos for Issues and Testing:
::-[Problem 1 : Issue #1093]: Replication Attempts <-- insert video link here
::-[https://youtu.be/U2-DGxZOfz0 Problem 2 : Issue #1097]: Run of Manual Test
::-[Problem 3 : Issue #1029]: Replication Attempts <-- insert video link here
::-[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wfurtDj8UuyjSyutFJmLptlyoz56p7jv/view?usp=sharing Problem 4 : Issue #927]: Run of Feature Test
::-[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1laFnMFBoTznsQ2QSh5TJfp7R5KQd6kuf/view?usp=sharing Problem 5 : Issue #1142]: Run of Manual Test
:*Project Links
::-Project Screencast <-- insert video link here
::-[https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1312# Pull request]
::-[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit# Project Document]
::-[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaUOA2WLsOY&list=PLfg44kGPNXFMb72Wnb9BD81h3HHYZDvjJ/edit# Tutorial videos on creating assignments]
::-[https://github.com/Manjunath-gaonkar/expertiza GitHub]: Forked Repository

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-12-05T07:51:32Z

Rrajan3: /* References & Related Links */

== '''Project Introduction & Motivation''' ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

The primary motivation behind this project is to give the students to review the projects of their peers effortlessly and fix all the issues of the previous implementation.

== '''Description of Project''' ==
Expertiza Project : E1864 ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues in the current Expertiza Version related to reviewing student work. Issues are centered around peer reviewing and assignment feature calibration. The motivation behind this project is to identify and resolve each bug in an attempt to improve the current system version. The project has been divided into required fixes. Four of the five problems are presented in ''Figure 1 - Application Flow Diagram'' below. This image is a general representation describing when each of the issues is encountered during a user session. Problem 5 (Issue # 1142) is not present in this figure as the problem is simply associated with the coding of a view file and not directly connected to the flow of students and reviews. Additional discussion on proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained in subsequent sections.

:::::[[File:FlowDiagram.PNG]]
::::::'''Figure 1 - Application Flow Diagram'''
::::::-----------------------------------------------

== '''UML diagram for reviw''' ==

:::::[[File:fig2_uml.PNG]]
'''Actors''':

:*Instructor - This actor is responsible for creating assignments and adding students to the assignment.
:*Student - This actor is responsible for submitting, reviewing other students work.

'''Database''':

:*The database where all the data of Expertiza is getting stored.

== '''Problem Statements & Descriptions''' ==

For this project, we have been asked to fix the follow bugs that have been found in the current Expertiza system :
=== Problem 1 : Issue #1093 ===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''
:*Example : The project name for which the review was performed earlier should not appear for the next list of reviews when a student requests a review to perform. This could lead to students reviewing the same project more than once and the requirement is to review different projects each time.

:::::[[File:Fig_3.PNG]]

'''Steps to reproduce the Issue #1093:'''
Figure 1 gives the holistic view on stages in which we see the issues. In this part, we will discuss the exact steps that need to be followed to reproduce the bugs.
:* Login as Instructor Create new assignment and associate to the course as shown in Figure 4
:* Add a participant to the assignment. there are two ways to do this in bulk first way is importing all the course participants to assignment . second approach is creating a file containing student details and import them to expertiza
:* Create topics and teams in expertiza either entering them one by one or from the file
:* In actual implementation topic association to the teams involves bidding process but for ease of use, we let instructor assign the topic (Figure 5). set min and max number of reviews allowed as shown in
:* Set the rubrics and number of review rounds (min one round is needed) (Figure 6)
:* Review assignment should be automatic not instructor controlled(scope of the stated issue is here) as shown in Figure 7
:* Set the deadlines for submission and review (shown in Figure 8)
:* Login as a student and submit work(this needs to be done for each team), request for review
:* If the issue persist system assign the same topic to review multiple times(as shown in Figure2).difficulty with this problem is that its reproducibility factor which is very low.

:::::[[File:p1_p1.PNG]]
:::::[[File:p1_p2.PNG]]

=== Problem 2 : Issue # 1097 ===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''
:*Example : When the reviewer submits a review for a project, the reviewer cannot edit/ update his review again. Before submitting it says "Once submitted, the review cannot be changed again". After clicking yes the reviewer is only able to view his reviews and not update even before the deadline.
This situation can occur in the following scenario. When a reviewer submits the review-1 a few minutes after the deadline, the rubric for review 2 occurs. So the review done for the first round actually becomes review for round 2. Hence the reviewer would not be able to update this review. In situations like these, updating the submitted review becomes useful.

Steps to reproduce the issue:
*Initial steps to reproduce this problem is same as the issue #1093
*Change the deadlines for the review to a few days after the present date and check if you are able to update the review. The picture shows deadline to submit is after 14 days. But the reviews are only able to be viewed.
:::::[[File:p2_p1_redo.PNG]]
:::::[[File:p2_p2_redo.PNG]]

=== Problem 3 : Issue # 1029 ===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''
:*Example : An author of a project has submitted his/her assignment to Expertiza. When a reviewer tries to review the work, sometimes it happens that the system shows the reviewer that the work has not been submitted yet. The reviewer should have been shown the work of the author to review.

'''Steps to reproduce the Issue #1029:'''
:* steps to reproduce this issue is similar to issue #1093, only the difference is once reviewer requests the assignment to review system throws a message saying there is no work has been submitted even though there is actually submitted work. This issue is not always reproducible

=== Problem 4 : Issue # 972 ===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''
:*Example : An instructor attempts to edit an existing assignment and change the number of review rounds. The reassignment causes an error in the system and this prevents the project update to occur.
'''Steps to reproduce the Issue #972 :'''
:*The [https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/issues/972 Github Bug Report] states that ''"You can change the # of rounds from 1 to 2. You can then change the # of rounds back to 1, and the assignment will appear to be saved with one round of review. But if you edit it again, the 2 rounds will still be present."'' Several attempts to reproduce this issue were made. Below are two of such test cases.
::- '''Test Case 1''' : Increment beyond current number of rounds then decrements back to the original assigned number of rounds for an existing assignment.
:::*Step 1 - Log in as ''instructor6''
:::*Step 2 - Go to the ''Manage Courses'' page and select - ''CSC 517 Spring 2015''
:::*Step 3 - Select the ''Edit'' option for - ''Final projects''
:::*Step 4 - Select the ''due dates'' tab as seen in figure 12
:::*Step 5a - Change the number of rounds from 2 to 3
:::*Step 6 - Press the ''Set'' option
:::*Step 7a - Select ''Save''

:::::[[File:fig12_p4_redo.PNG]]
:::::[[File:fig13_p4.PNG]]

:::- One can see from Figure 13 that the change in round number is successfully updated and reflected in the tab. To ensure that the assignment was saved correctly, logging out of the user session, steps 1 - 4 were repeated and the previous changes were found to persist.

:::*Step 5b - Change the number of rounds from 3 back to 2
:::*Step 6 - Press the ''Set'' option
:::*Step 7b - Select ''Save''

:::::[[File:fig14_p4.PNG]]

:::- One can see from Figure 14 that the change in round number is successfully updated and reflected in the tab. To ensure that the assignment was saved correctly, logging out of the user session, steps 1 - 4 were repeated and the previous changes were found to persist.

::- '''Test Case 2''' : Decrement below current number of rounds an existing assignment with submissions.
:::*Step 1 - Log in as ''instructor6''
:::*Step 2 - Go to the ''Manage Courses'' page and select - ''CSC 517 Spring 2016''
:::*Step 3 - Select the ''Edit'' option for - ''Program 1: Class portal''
:::*Step 4 - Select the ''due dates'' tab as seen in figure 12
:::*Step 5a - Change the number of rounds from 2 to 1
:::*Step 6 - Press the ''Set'' option
:::*Step 7 - Confirm the reduction below the current number of rounds
:::*Step 8 - Press ''OK'' to exit the notification popup
::::''Addition steps 6-8 can be seen in Figure 15 below.''
:::*Step 7a - Select ''Save''

:::::[[File:fig15_p4.PNG]]
:::::[[File:fig16_p4.PNG]]

:::- One can see from Figure 16 that the change in round number is successfully updated and reflected in the tab. To ensure that the assignment was saved correctly, logging out of the user session, steps 1 - 4 were repeated and the previous changes were found to persist.

:*Several similar tests were conducted in an attempt to reproduce this issue; however, none were successful.
:*'''Unstated Issue''': there is an issue that arises from the reduction of rounds for assignments that currently contain submissions. After the udpate, When an current student attempts to go and review his/her scores, this causes a ''NoMethodError in Grades#view_team''. A bug should be created for this issue for another round of project issues.

=== Problem 5 : Issue # 1142 ===
:*''“Summary Result Assignment” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''
:*Example : As seen in Figure 17 below, the result of hovering over a review result displays the message in raw HTML. The intended result is for review comment to be rendered properly while displaying.

:::::[[File:fig_17_p5.PNG]]
::::::''Figure 17 was taken from the actual deployed version of Expertiza through a person student account.''

::-'''Test Case 1''' : Hover for Reviewer Comment
:::*Step 1 - Log in as instructor6
:::*Step 2 - Select ''Manage'' and ''Impersonate User''
:::*Step 3 - Impersonate ''student6370''
:::*Step 4 - Selec ''OSS project/Writing assignment 2''
:::*Step 5 - Hover over any underlined review score

:::::[[File:fig_18_p5.PNG]]
::::::''Figure 18 was taken from the development version of Expertiza through the test case steps mentioned above.''

:*After testing and research into this issue, it has been determined that the issue has been adjusted in the development image and has not yet been merged with the deployed version.

== '''Files to be Modified''' ==

:*''app/views/student_review/_responses.html.erb''
:*''app/views/response/response.html.erb''
:*''app/controllers/response_controller.rb''
:*''spec/controllers/response_controller_spec.rb''
:*''spec/features/assignment_round_adjustment.rb''

== '''Solution Design''' ==
=== Problem 1 : Issue # 1093 ===
:* Several attempts have been made to reproduce this problem. We tested with both old and latest database but the issue did not reproduce.
:* We also tried with creating a new assignment, adding participants to the assignment, assign reviews to the student then logging in as student and request for a topic to review even with this issue did not reproduce
:* After discussing with mentor and Dr.Gehringer we are marking this issue as not reproducible

=== Problem 2 : Issue # 1097 ===
:*To solve this problem we will edit code in ''app/views/student_review/_responses.html.erb'', ''app/views/response/response.html.erb'', and ''app/controllers/response_controller.rb'' to enable a reviewer to update the review until the round deadline. We will also remove the confirmation message "Once submitted, it cannot be changed again" before the deadline to appropriate reflect this edit.
:*Once these changes have been made, the new view will be reflected as seen in the figure below.

:::::[[File: P2 sol.PNG]]
:::::-The reviewer now has the option to both view and update their submitted reviews multiple times before the round deadline This is in contrast to the previous build where the reviewer could only 'view' their submission.

:'''1)''' ''app/views/student_review/_responses.html.erb'' - added a condition such that a user is allowed to update a review even after submission.
<pre>
<% if (last_response_round == current_round)%>
<td>
<% if (!@latest_response.is_submitted) %>
<%= link_to "Edit", {:controller => 'response', :action => 'edit', :id => @latest_response.id} %>
<%end%>
</td>
<% else %>
<td>
<%= link_to "Update", {:controller => 'response', :action => 'new', :id => map.map_id} %>
</td>
<% end %>
</pre>

<pre>
<% if (last_response_round == current_round)%>
<td>
<% if (!@latest_response.is_submitted) %>
<%= link_to "Edit", {:controller => 'response', :action => 'edit', :id => @latest_response.id} %>
<% else %>
<%= link_to "Update", {:controller => 'response', :action => 'edit', :id => @latest_response.id} %>
<%end%>
</td>
<% else %>
<td>
<%= link_to "Update", {:controller => 'response', :action => 'new', :id => map.map_id} %>
</td>
<% end %>
</pre>

:'''2)''' ''app/views/response/response.html.erb'' - update confirmation message

<pre>
if(!confirm('Once a review has been submitted, you cannot edit it again')){
e.preventDefault();
e.stopPropagation();
return;
}else{
jQuery('#isSubmit').val('Yes');
window.location.href= "../../../student_review/list?id=<%= @map.reviewer.id %>";
}
</pre>

<pre>
if(!confirm('Are you sure you would like to Submit?')){
e.preventDefault();
e.stopPropagation();
return;
}else{
jQuery('#isSubmit').val('Yes');
window.location.href= "../../../student_review/list?id=<%= @map.reviewer.id %>";
}
</pre>

:'''3)''' ''app/controllers/response_controller.rb'' - commented out line 14 that returned false if the response was submitted because we no longer need the value of this attribute
<pre>
when 'edit' # If response has been submitted, no further editing allowed
return false if response.is_submitted
return current_user_id?(user_id)
# Deny access to anyone except reviewer & author's team
</pre>
<pre>
when 'edit' # If response has been submitted, no further editing allowed
#return false if response.is_submitted
return current_user_id?(user_id)
# Deny access to anyone except reviewer & author's team
</pre>

:*Required Updates to ''spec/controllers/response_controller_spec.rb''
::- The test to verify the restricted nature of editing a submitted review was removed as this restriction no longer applies. This testcase can be found on line 33 of the rspec test file.

=== Problem 3 : Issue # 1029 ===
:*As no attempt to reproduce this issue were not successful, After discussing with Dr.Gehringer we realized that issue is not reproducible. Hence marking this issue as not reproducible

=== Problem 4 : Issue # 972 ===
:* As no attempts to reproduce the stated issue were successful, no solution to this problem can be proposed. In the [https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/issues/972 Github Bug Report] there is a reference to a similar [https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1033 Github Bug Report] that encompasses this same issue that has been marked ''closed''. For the purposed of this project, testing of this believed fix in the ''update_feedback_assignment_form_attributes'' function of assignments_controller.rb will be tested to ensure correctness. This test has been added to the ''features'' spec folder of Expertiza as ''expertiza/spec/features/assignment_round_adjustment_spec.rb''. A video capture of this feature test has been included in the ''References & Related Links'' section of this wiki.

=== Problem 5 : Issue # 1142 ===
:* As no attempts to reproduce the stated issue were successful, no solution to this problem can be proposed. Upon further exploration of the view file ''view_team.html.erb'', it was found that a [https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/commit/bc09d3d6e2e4572614549a6b35161b65b9850df6#diff-4206b1581c5808c1e3148c42f7ef46f8 patch] was introduced to fix this bug by assuring that the html was rendered safely.Because this bug was already fixed prior to the distribution of our project, no further action is needed to address the issue. This action has been confirmed by Dr. Gehringer on Novemebr 27,2018. A video capture of this manual test has been included in the ''References & Related Links'' section of this wiki.

== '''Testing Plan''' ==
''Testing Plan will be implemented upon the discovery of fixed bugs described in the project document as a means of verifying the fix.''

To ensure correctness of bug fixes following test plan was implemented:
:* Problem 1 : Issue #1093
::- ''No Testing Required - Bug not Reproducible''
:* Problem 2 : Issue #1097
::- Verify that upon submission of the review, the reviewer maintains an option to "update" the review until review deadline ends
:* Problem 3 : Issue #1029
::- ''No Testing Required - Bug not Reproducible''
:* Problem 4 : Issue #927
::- Verify assignment holds the number of review rounds value
::- Verify that the increasing number of review rounds after creating the assignment saves successfully and the new value is retained
::- Verify that the decreasing number of review rounds after creating the assignment saves successfully and the new value is retained
:* Problem 5 : Issue #1142
::- Verify that when user views score review comments rendered as processed HTML only(there should not be any rendered HTML tags)
:
:* The setup for testing both problems 2 & 5 is complex as there are many necessary associations and procedures that are required to achieve the appropriate testing state. Assuming that a sufficient setup is achieved, a feature test for Issue 2 would simulate logging in as a student, visiting the ''Others Work'' page and submitting a review submission which would allow for the verification that an option to update his or her review is available, upon returning to the student assignment page. Further, a feature test for Issue 5 would simulate logging in as a student, visiting the ''Your Scores'' page, where he or she would be able to hover over a response link to validate the comment rendering.
:* The follow is a list of several suitable models and possible relationships:
::- Models:
:::* Course
:::* Assignment
:::* Assignment_Mapping
:::* Response Questionnaire
:::* Review_Mapping
:::* Response
:::* Team
:::* Topic
:::* Participants - reviewer & reviewee
:::* Submission
::- Relationships:
:::* A course must contain participants and assignments
:::* An assignment must be associated with participants and response questionnaires
:::* A response questionnaire must be associated with participants and responses
:::* It is also required that a reviewee submit an assignment to then be reviewed by a reviewer.

== '''References & Related Links''' ==

:*Accompanying Videos for Issues and Testing:
::-[Problem 1 : Issue #1093]: Replication Attempts <-- insert video link here
::-[https://youtu.be/4FZIFS76KBc Problem 2 : Issue #1097]: Run of Manual Test
::-[Problem 3 : Issue #1029]: Replication Attempts <-- insert video link here
::-[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wfurtDj8UuyjSyutFJmLptlyoz56p7jv/view?usp=sharing Problem 4 : Issue #927]: Run of Feature Test
::-[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1laFnMFBoTznsQ2QSh5TJfp7R5KQd6kuf/view?usp=sharing Problem 5 : Issue #1142]: Run of Manual Test
:*Project Links
::-Project Screencast <-- insert video link here
::-[https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1312# Pull request]
::-[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit# Project Document]
::-[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaUOA2WLsOY&list=PLfg44kGPNXFMb72Wnb9BD81h3HHYZDvjJ/edit# Tutorial videos on creating assignments]
::-[https://github.com/Manjunath-gaonkar/expertiza GitHub]: Forked Repository

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-21T22:16:05Z

Rrajan3: /* Problem 2 : Issue # 1097 */

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-21T22:15:21Z

Rrajan3: /* Problem 2 : Issue # 1097 */

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-21T22:15:03Z

Rrajan3: /* Problem 2 : Issue # 1097 */

File:2.png

2018-11-21T22:05:34Z

Rrajan3: uploaded a new version of "File:2.png"

Double diamond problem

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-21T21:37:10Z

Rrajan3: /* Problem 2 : Issue # 1097 */

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-21T21:20:04Z

Rrajan3: /* Problem 2 : Issue # 1097 */

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-21T04:35:15Z

Rrajan3: /* Problem 2 : Issue # 1097 */

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-21T04:32:05Z

Rrajan3: /* Problem 2 : Issue # 1097 */

File:3.png

2018-11-21T04:30:36Z

Rrajan3: uploaded a new version of "File:3.png"

IS-A and HAS-A Rules of Inheritance

File:2.png

2018-11-21T04:30:27Z

Rrajan3: uploaded a new version of "File:2.png"

Double diamond problem

File:1.png

2018-11-21T04:30:08Z

Rrajan3: uploaded a new version of "File:1.png"

Distributed Version Control System

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-21T04:29:32Z

Rrajan3: /* Problem 2 : Issue # 1097 */

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T22:34:16Z

Rrajan3: /* Problem Statement */

File:Prob1.png

2018-11-10T22:33:51Z

Rrajan3: uploaded a new version of "File:Prob1.png"

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T22:29:46Z

Rrajan3: /* Problem Statement */

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T22:29:15Z

Rrajan3: /* Problem Statement */

File:Prob1.png

2018-11-10T22:28:25Z

Rrajan3:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T22:19:09Z

Rrajan3: /* Problem Statement */

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T21:55:59Z

Rrajan3: /* References */

== '''Introduction''' ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

== '''Motivation''' ==
'''Previous Implementation'''
*When a student requests a review to perform, same reviews appear multiple times in a list of reviews.
*The current system does not allow the students to update the reviews. They are only allowed to edit the reviews even if has already been submitted.
*The system shows the reviewer that the work has not been submitted yet even when it has already been submitted.
*The system fails and throws an error we edit an existing assignment and change the number of review rounds.

'''Motivation'''

The primary motivation behind this project is to give the students to review the projects of their peers effortlessly and fix all the issues of the previous implementation.

== '''Description of Project''' ==
The project numbered E1864 and titled ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues related to reviewing, so that whenever your peers review your work, or an instructor try to configure number of reviews that should be performed by each student for each round, it will work properly in all situation. The project has been divided into five problem statements and each of them is addressing an individual issue we need to fix. The statements and the proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained below as implementation.

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

== '''Project requirement''' ==
===Problem 1 : Issue #1093===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''

===Problem 2 : Issue #1097===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''

===Problem 3 : Issue #1029===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #972===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #1142===
:*''“Show calibration results” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''

== '''Task Description''' ==

== '''Use Cases''' ==

== '''Unit Testing''' ==

== '''Testing Plan''' ==

== '''References''' ==
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit#

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T21:55:51Z

Rrajan3: /* Testing Plan */

== '''Introduction''' ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

== '''Motivation''' ==
'''Previous Implementation'''
*When a student requests a review to perform, same reviews appear multiple times in a list of reviews.
*The current system does not allow the students to update the reviews. They are only allowed to edit the reviews even if has already been submitted.
*The system shows the reviewer that the work has not been submitted yet even when it has already been submitted.
*The system fails and throws an error we edit an existing assignment and change the number of review rounds.

'''Motivation'''

The primary motivation behind this project is to give the students to review the projects of their peers effortlessly and fix all the issues of the previous implementation.

== '''Description of Project''' ==
The project numbered E1864 and titled ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues related to reviewing, so that whenever your peers review your work, or an instructor try to configure number of reviews that should be performed by each student for each round, it will work properly in all situation. The project has been divided into five problem statements and each of them is addressing an individual issue we need to fix. The statements and the proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained below as implementation.

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

== '''Project requirement''' ==
===Problem 1 : Issue #1093===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''

===Problem 2 : Issue #1097===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''

===Problem 3 : Issue #1029===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #972===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #1142===
:*''“Show calibration results” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''

== '''Task Description''' ==

== '''Use Cases''' ==

== '''Unit Testing''' ==

== '''Testing Plan''' ==

== References ==
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit#

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T21:55:42Z

Rrajan3: /* Unit Testing */

== '''Introduction''' ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

== '''Motivation''' ==
'''Previous Implementation'''
*When a student requests a review to perform, same reviews appear multiple times in a list of reviews.
*The current system does not allow the students to update the reviews. They are only allowed to edit the reviews even if has already been submitted.
*The system shows the reviewer that the work has not been submitted yet even when it has already been submitted.
*The system fails and throws an error we edit an existing assignment and change the number of review rounds.

'''Motivation'''

The primary motivation behind this project is to give the students to review the projects of their peers effortlessly and fix all the issues of the previous implementation.

== '''Description of Project''' ==
The project numbered E1864 and titled ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues related to reviewing, so that whenever your peers review your work, or an instructor try to configure number of reviews that should be performed by each student for each round, it will work properly in all situation. The project has been divided into five problem statements and each of them is addressing an individual issue we need to fix. The statements and the proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained below as implementation.

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

== '''Project requirement''' ==
===Problem 1 : Issue #1093===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''

===Problem 2 : Issue #1097===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''

===Problem 3 : Issue #1029===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #972===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #1142===
:*''“Show calibration results” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''

== '''Task Description''' ==

== '''Use Cases''' ==

== '''Unit Testing''' ==

== Testing Plan ==

== References ==
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit#

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T21:55:35Z

Rrajan3: /* Use Cases */

== '''Introduction''' ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

== '''Motivation''' ==
'''Previous Implementation'''
*When a student requests a review to perform, same reviews appear multiple times in a list of reviews.
*The current system does not allow the students to update the reviews. They are only allowed to edit the reviews even if has already been submitted.
*The system shows the reviewer that the work has not been submitted yet even when it has already been submitted.
*The system fails and throws an error we edit an existing assignment and change the number of review rounds.

'''Motivation'''

The primary motivation behind this project is to give the students to review the projects of their peers effortlessly and fix all the issues of the previous implementation.

== '''Description of Project''' ==
The project numbered E1864 and titled ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues related to reviewing, so that whenever your peers review your work, or an instructor try to configure number of reviews that should be performed by each student for each round, it will work properly in all situation. The project has been divided into five problem statements and each of them is addressing an individual issue we need to fix. The statements and the proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained below as implementation.

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

== '''Project requirement''' ==
===Problem 1 : Issue #1093===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''

===Problem 2 : Issue #1097===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''

===Problem 3 : Issue #1029===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #972===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #1142===
:*''“Show calibration results” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''

== '''Task Description''' ==

== '''Use Cases''' ==

== Unit Testing ==

== Testing Plan ==

== References ==
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit#

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T21:55:27Z

Rrajan3: /* Task Description */

== '''Introduction''' ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

== '''Motivation''' ==
'''Previous Implementation'''
*When a student requests a review to perform, same reviews appear multiple times in a list of reviews.
*The current system does not allow the students to update the reviews. They are only allowed to edit the reviews even if has already been submitted.
*The system shows the reviewer that the work has not been submitted yet even when it has already been submitted.
*The system fails and throws an error we edit an existing assignment and change the number of review rounds.

'''Motivation'''

The primary motivation behind this project is to give the students to review the projects of their peers effortlessly and fix all the issues of the previous implementation.

== '''Description of Project''' ==
The project numbered E1864 and titled ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues related to reviewing, so that whenever your peers review your work, or an instructor try to configure number of reviews that should be performed by each student for each round, it will work properly in all situation. The project has been divided into five problem statements and each of them is addressing an individual issue we need to fix. The statements and the proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained below as implementation.

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

== '''Project requirement''' ==
===Problem 1 : Issue #1093===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''

===Problem 2 : Issue #1097===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''

===Problem 3 : Issue #1029===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #972===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #1142===
:*''“Show calibration results” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''

== '''Task Description''' ==

== Use Cases ==

== Unit Testing ==

== Testing Plan ==

== References ==
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit#

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T21:55:16Z

Rrajan3: /* Project requirement */

== '''Introduction''' ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

== '''Motivation''' ==
'''Previous Implementation'''
*When a student requests a review to perform, same reviews appear multiple times in a list of reviews.
*The current system does not allow the students to update the reviews. They are only allowed to edit the reviews even if has already been submitted.
*The system shows the reviewer that the work has not been submitted yet even when it has already been submitted.
*The system fails and throws an error we edit an existing assignment and change the number of review rounds.

'''Motivation'''

The primary motivation behind this project is to give the students to review the projects of their peers effortlessly and fix all the issues of the previous implementation.

== '''Description of Project''' ==
The project numbered E1864 and titled ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues related to reviewing, so that whenever your peers review your work, or an instructor try to configure number of reviews that should be performed by each student for each round, it will work properly in all situation. The project has been divided into five problem statements and each of them is addressing an individual issue we need to fix. The statements and the proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained below as implementation.

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

== '''Project requirement''' ==
===Problem 1 : Issue #1093===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''

===Problem 2 : Issue #1097===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''

===Problem 3 : Issue #1029===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #972===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #1142===
:*''“Show calibration results” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''

== Task Description ==

== Use Cases ==

== Unit Testing ==

== Testing Plan ==

== References ==
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit#

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T21:55:07Z

Rrajan3: /* Problem Statement */

== '''Introduction''' ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

== '''Motivation''' ==
'''Previous Implementation'''
*When a student requests a review to perform, same reviews appear multiple times in a list of reviews.
*The current system does not allow the students to update the reviews. They are only allowed to edit the reviews even if has already been submitted.
*The system shows the reviewer that the work has not been submitted yet even when it has already been submitted.
*The system fails and throws an error we edit an existing assignment and change the number of review rounds.

'''Motivation'''

The primary motivation behind this project is to give the students to review the projects of their peers effortlessly and fix all the issues of the previous implementation.

== '''Description of Project''' ==
The project numbered E1864 and titled ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues related to reviewing, so that whenever your peers review your work, or an instructor try to configure number of reviews that should be performed by each student for each round, it will work properly in all situation. The project has been divided into five problem statements and each of them is addressing an individual issue we need to fix. The statements and the proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained below as implementation.

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

== Project requirement ==
===Problem 1 : Issue #1093===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''

===Problem 2 : Issue #1097===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''

===Problem 3 : Issue #1029===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #972===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #1142===
:*''“Show calibration results” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''

== Task Description ==

== Use Cases ==

== Unit Testing ==

== Testing Plan ==

== References ==
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit#

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T21:54:55Z

Rrajan3: /* Description of Project */

== '''Introduction''' ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

== '''Motivation''' ==
'''Previous Implementation'''
*When a student requests a review to perform, same reviews appear multiple times in a list of reviews.
*The current system does not allow the students to update the reviews. They are only allowed to edit the reviews even if has already been submitted.
*The system shows the reviewer that the work has not been submitted yet even when it has already been submitted.
*The system fails and throws an error we edit an existing assignment and change the number of review rounds.

'''Motivation'''

The primary motivation behind this project is to give the students to review the projects of their peers effortlessly and fix all the issues of the previous implementation.

== '''Description of Project''' ==
The project numbered E1864 and titled ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues related to reviewing, so that whenever your peers review your work, or an instructor try to configure number of reviews that should be performed by each student for each round, it will work properly in all situation. The project has been divided into five problem statements and each of them is addressing an individual issue we need to fix. The statements and the proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained below as implementation.

== Problem Statement ==

== Project requirement ==
===Problem 1 : Issue #1093===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''

===Problem 2 : Issue #1097===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''

===Problem 3 : Issue #1029===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #972===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #1142===
:*''“Show calibration results” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''

== Task Description ==

== Use Cases ==

== Unit Testing ==

== Testing Plan ==

== References ==
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit#

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T21:54:40Z

Rrajan3:

== '''Introduction''' ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

== '''Motivation''' ==
'''Previous Implementation'''
*When a student requests a review to perform, same reviews appear multiple times in a list of reviews.
*The current system does not allow the students to update the reviews. They are only allowed to edit the reviews even if has already been submitted.
*The system shows the reviewer that the work has not been submitted yet even when it has already been submitted.
*The system fails and throws an error we edit an existing assignment and change the number of review rounds.

'''Motivation'''

The primary motivation behind this project is to give the students to review the projects of their peers effortlessly and fix all the issues of the previous implementation.

== Description of Project ==
The project numbered E1864 and titled ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues related to reviewing, so that whenever your peers review your work, or an instructor try to configure number of reviews that should be performed by each student for each round, it will work properly in all situation. The project has been divided into five problem statements and each of them is addressing an individual issue we need to fix. The statements and the proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained below as implementation.

== Problem Statement ==

== Project requirement ==
===Problem 1 : Issue #1093===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''

===Problem 2 : Issue #1097===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''

===Problem 3 : Issue #1029===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #972===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #1142===
:*''“Show calibration results” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''

== Task Description ==

== Use Cases ==

== Unit Testing ==

== Testing Plan ==

== References ==
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit#

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T21:48:23Z

Rrajan3: /* Motivation */

== '''Introduction''' ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

== '''Motivation''' ==
'''Previous Implementation'''
*When a student requests a review to perform, same reviews appear multiple times in a list of reviews.
*The current system does not allow the students to update the reviews. They are only allowed to edit the reviews even if has already been submitted.
*The system shows the reviewer that the work has not been submitted yet even when it has already been submitted.
*The system fails and throws an error we edit an existing assignment and change the number of review rounds.

'''Motivation'''

The primary motivation behind this project is to give the students to review the projects of their peers effortlessly and fix all the issues of the previous implementation.

== Description of Project ==
The project numbered E1864 and titled ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues related to reviewing, so that whenever your peers review your work, or an instructor try to configure number of reviews that should be performed by each student for each round, it will work properly in all situation. The project has been divided into five problem statements and each of them is addressing an individual issue we need to fix. The statements and the proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained below as implementation.

== Project requirement ==
===Problem 1 : Issue #1093===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''

===Problem 2 : Issue #1097===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''

===Problem 3 : Issue #1029===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #972===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #1142===
:*''“Show calibration results” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''

== Analysis and Implementation ==

== Use Cases ==

== Unit Testing ==

== Testing Plan ==

== References ==
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit#

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T21:47:58Z

Rrajan3: /* Motivation: */

== '''Introduction''' ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

== '''Motivation''' ==
'''Previous Implementation'''
*When a student requests a review to perform, same reviews appear multiple times in a list of reviews.
*The current system does not allow the students to update the reviews. They are only allowed to edit the reviews even if has already been submitted.
*The system shows the reviewer that the work has not been submitted yet even when it has already been submitted.
*The system fails and throws an error we edit an existing assignment and change the number of review rounds.

== Description of Project ==
The project numbered E1864 and titled ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues related to reviewing, so that whenever your peers review your work, or an instructor try to configure number of reviews that should be performed by each student for each round, it will work properly in all situation. The project has been divided into five problem statements and each of them is addressing an individual issue we need to fix. The statements and the proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained below as implementation.

== Project requirement ==
===Problem 1 : Issue #1093===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''

===Problem 2 : Issue #1097===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''

===Problem 3 : Issue #1029===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #972===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #1142===
:*''“Show calibration results” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''

== Analysis and Implementation ==

== Use Cases ==

== Unit Testing ==

== Testing Plan ==

== References ==
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit#

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T21:47:48Z

Rrajan3: /* Motivation */

== '''Introduction''' ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

== '''Motivation''' ==
'''Previous Implementation'''
*When a student requests a review to perform, same reviews appear multiple times in a list of reviews.
*The current system does not allow the students to update the reviews. They are only allowed to edit the reviews even if has already been submitted.
*The system shows the reviewer that the work has not been submitted yet even when it has already been submitted.
*The system fails and throws an error we edit an existing assignment and change the number of review rounds.

== Motivation: ==

The primary motivation behind this project is to give the students to review the projects of their peers effortlessly and fix all the issues of the previous implementation.

== Description of Project ==
The project numbered E1864 and titled ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues related to reviewing, so that whenever your peers review your work, or an instructor try to configure number of reviews that should be performed by each student for each round, it will work properly in all situation. The project has been divided into five problem statements and each of them is addressing an individual issue we need to fix. The statements and the proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained below as implementation.

== Project requirement ==
===Problem 1 : Issue #1093===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''

===Problem 2 : Issue #1097===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''

===Problem 3 : Issue #1029===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #972===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #1142===
:*''“Show calibration results” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''

== Analysis and Implementation ==

== Use Cases ==

== Unit Testing ==

== Testing Plan ==

== References ==
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit#

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T21:47:24Z

Rrajan3: /* Previous Implementation: */

== '''Introduction''' ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

== '''Motivation''' ==
== Motivation: ==

The primary motivation behind this project is to give the students to review the projects of their peers effortlessly and fix all the issues of the previous implementation.

== Description of Project ==
The project numbered E1864 and titled ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues related to reviewing, so that whenever your peers review your work, or an instructor try to configure number of reviews that should be performed by each student for each round, it will work properly in all situation. The project has been divided into five problem statements and each of them is addressing an individual issue we need to fix. The statements and the proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained below as implementation.

== Project requirement ==
===Problem 1 : Issue #1093===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''

===Problem 2 : Issue #1097===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''

===Problem 3 : Issue #1029===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #972===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #1142===
:*''“Show calibration results” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''

== Analysis and Implementation ==

== Use Cases ==

== Unit Testing ==

== Testing Plan ==

== References ==
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit#

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T21:46:55Z

Rrajan3: /* Introduction */

== '''Introduction''' ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

== '''Motivation''' ==
== Previous Implementation: ==

*When a student requests a review to perform, same reviews appear multiple times in a list of reviews.
*The current system does not allow the students to update the reviews. They are only allowed to edit the reviews even if has already been submitted.
*The system shows the reviewer that the work has not been submitted yet even when it has already been submitted.
*The system fails and throws an error we edit an existing assignment and change the number of review rounds.
== Motivation: ==

The primary motivation behind this project is to give the students to review the projects of their peers effortlessly and fix all the issues of the previous implementation.

== Description of Project ==
The project numbered E1864 and titled ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues related to reviewing, so that whenever your peers review your work, or an instructor try to configure number of reviews that should be performed by each student for each round, it will work properly in all situation. The project has been divided into five problem statements and each of them is addressing an individual issue we need to fix. The statements and the proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained below as implementation.

== Project requirement ==
===Problem 1 : Issue #1093===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''

===Problem 2 : Issue #1097===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''

===Problem 3 : Issue #1029===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #972===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #1142===
:*''“Show calibration results” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''

== Analysis and Implementation ==

== Use Cases ==

== Unit Testing ==

== Testing Plan ==

== References ==
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit#

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T21:46:05Z

Rrajan3: /* Description of Project */

== Introduction ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

== '''Motivation''' ==
== Previous Implementation: ==

*When a student requests a review to perform, same reviews appear multiple times in a list of reviews.
*The current system does not allow the students to update the reviews. They are only allowed to edit the reviews even if has already been submitted.
*The system shows the reviewer that the work has not been submitted yet even when it has already been submitted.
*The system fails and throws an error we edit an existing assignment and change the number of review rounds.
== Motivation: ==

The primary motivation behind this project is to give the students to review the projects of their peers effortlessly and fix all the issues of the previous implementation.

== Description of Project ==
The project numbered E1864 and titled ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues related to reviewing, so that whenever your peers review your work, or an instructor try to configure number of reviews that should be performed by each student for each round, it will work properly in all situation. The project has been divided into five problem statements and each of them is addressing an individual issue we need to fix. The statements and the proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained below as implementation.

== Project requirement ==
===Problem 1 : Issue #1093===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''

===Problem 2 : Issue #1097===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''

===Problem 3 : Issue #1029===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #972===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #1142===
:*''“Show calibration results” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''

== Analysis and Implementation ==

== Use Cases ==

== Unit Testing ==

== Testing Plan ==

== References ==
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit#

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 E1864: Issues related to Reviewing

2018-11-10T21:45:46Z

Rrajan3: /* Motivation */

== Introduction ==
[http://expertiza.ncsu.edu/ Expertiza] is an open source web-based peer review system developed and maintained by students and faculty members at North Carolina State University. It has been developed as Open Source Software using Ruby on Rails framework. Expertiza allows students to form teams, review each other's work such as assignments and projects. It provides the role based access so that instructor can impose restriction what students can view/edit.

== '''Motivation''' ==
== Previous Implementation: ==

*When a student requests a review to perform, same reviews appear multiple times in a list of reviews.
*The current system does not allow the students to update the reviews. They are only allowed to edit the reviews even if has already been submitted.
*The system shows the reviewer that the work has not been submitted yet even when it has already been submitted.
*The system fails and throws an error we edit an existing assignment and change the number of review rounds.
== Motivation: ==

The primary motivation behind this project is to give the students to review the projects of their peers effortlessly and fix all the issues of the previous implementation.

== Description of Project ==
he project numbered E1864 and titled ‘Issues Related to Reviewing' is intended to fix five known issues related to reviewing, so that whenever your peers review your work, or an instructor try to configure number of reviews that should be performed by each student for each round, it will work properly in all situation. The project has been divided into five problem statements and each of them is addressing an individual issue we need to fix. The statements and the proposed approaches to meet the requirements are explained below as implementation.

== Project requirement ==
===Problem 1 : Issue #1093===
:*''When a student requests a project to review, duplicate reviews appear in the list of available projects.''

===Problem 2 : Issue #1097===
:*''When a project author resubmits their assignment, the reviewers should be able to update, not edit, their reviews. This should hold even if those reviews have already been submitted. The current system does not allow reviewers to update their reviews.''

===Problem 3 : Issue #1029===
:*''When a reviewer tries to review a project, sometimes he/she is shown that the project has not yet been submitted when in fact it has.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #972===
:*''When updating the number of review rounds for an existing project, and error is generated and this action fails.''

===Problem 4 : Issue #1142===
:*''“Show calibration results” page shows raw HTML when it should displayed as processed HTML.''

== Analysis and Implementation ==

== Use Cases ==

== Unit Testing ==

== Testing Plan ==

== References ==
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br9hm-SWIvl5ibWSfRVjmiYTQl5j27l8slWhv2iUCqQ/edit#

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 - E1825: Add past-due assignments to task list

2018-11-10T04:58:20Z

Rrajan3: /* Color code assignments by closeness to due-date */

=== About Expertiza ===
Expertiza is a web application where students can submit and peer-review learning objects (articles, code, websites, etc). It is used in select courses at NC State and by professors at several other colleges and universities. -- Expertiza project

== Overview:- ==
The E1825 project is a course project for CSC 517 - Object Oriented Development and Design for Fall 2018. It involves adding some enhancements to the existing system. The primary goal of this project is to differentiate past due assignments from current assignments. The tasks to be completed are as follows:-
* Add past due assignments to the student’s task list (on Student View).
* Color code assignments by closeness to due date (on Student View).
* Check for correction in due dates of assignments (when an assignment’s due date is edited, it should be appropriately moved from the “Past assignments” list to the “Current Assignments” list if needed)
* On Student Task page, separate the list of 'teamed with' students from the current tasks box.
* Write the required tests before implementing/refactoring the methods in the above-mentioned classes.

== Files Changed ==

student_task_controller.erb 
app/views/student_task/list.html.erb 
student_task_helper.rb 
Airbrake_exception_errors_feature_tests_spec.rb 

== New Files Added ==

will_paginate_array_fix.rb 
student_task_controller_spec.rb

== Add past-due assignments to the student’s task list ==

The existing system contains the view where all the assignments of a student are displayed as a single list regardless of their due date. Now we have created a separate table for assignments that are overdue by the student. The displayed list is such that the most recent due assignment is shown at the top. 
To accomplish this task we have modified student_task_controller.rb and list.html.erb file (in student_task). A helper function was also added to format a string into multiple lines. In student_task_controller a new instance variable was created to capture all the student tasks that are overdue in ascending order of dueness. The existing instance variable was used to capture all the tasks that are currently due. 
In the view file i.e list.html.erb, a new table is created to contain a list of past assignments.

== Color code assignments by closeness to due-date ==

The current task-table on the homepage contains all the assignments displayed in white background. So to alert the user of approaching deadlines, we color code the background of each assignment title as red, orange, yellow or green depending on the proximity to its deadline. 
To accomplish the above-mentioned task, we added a helper method for student_task_controller that receives a due_date and calculates the days remaining for that date and then using this value it returns a string which denotes what should be the background of the row.

Separate the list of 'teamed with' students from the current tasks box

Currently, the current task lists and the student you have teamed up with are being shown in the same box. We need to separate these two. To achieve this we create an additional box, by adding a new "taskbox" div tag in list.html.erb. So the task list and the teammates are shown in different boxes.

You can find the snapshot of the changes here:

[https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PZeo8QBNOMKlObuy53Kfx6KqbLiRkCxr Separating past assignments with the present ]

[https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gOnzGbT1AZjPQrAbprWfZFfa_1nv2Kyy list.html.erb]

== Test Plan ==

Our project involves mostly changing the view based on certain conditions. The testing of our project is based on simply checking whether the elements on the view change after a certain condition is satisfied, like changing of the background color for tasks as we approach the deadline. For example, if the due date is within a day, then the background color should be red or if it's more than 10 days it should be green.

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2018 - E1825: Add past-due assignments to task list

2018-11-10T04:55:38Z

Rrajan3: /* Separate the list of 'teamed with' students from the current tasks box */

=== About Expertiza ===
Expertiza is a web application where students can submit and peer-review learning objects (articles, code, websites, etc). It is used in select courses at NC State and by professors at several other colleges and universities. -- Expertiza project

== Overview:- ==
The E1825 project is a course project for CSC 517 - Object Oriented Development and Design for Fall 2018. It involves adding some enhancements to the existing system. The primary goal of this project is to differentiate past due assignments from current assignments. The tasks to be completed are as follows:-
* Add past due assignments to the student’s task list (on Student View).
* Color code assignments by closeness to due date (on Student View).
* Check for correction in due dates of assignments (when an assignment’s due date is edited, it should be appropriately moved from the “Past assignments” list to the “Current Assignments” list if needed)
* On Student Task page, separate the list of 'teamed with' students from the current tasks box.
* Write the required tests before implementing/refactoring the methods in the above-mentioned classes.

== Files Changed ==

student_task_controller.erb 
app/views/student_task/list.html.erb 
student_task_helper.rb 
Airbrake_exception_errors_feature_tests_spec.rb 

== New Files Added ==

will_paginate_array_fix.rb 
student_task_controller_spec.rb

== Add past-due assignments to the student’s task list ==

The existing system contains the view where all the assignments of a student are displayed as a single list regardless of their due date. Now we have created a separate table for assignments that are overdue by the student. The displayed list is such that the most recent due assignment is shown at the top. 
To accomplish this task we have modified student_task_controller.rb and list.html.erb file (in student_task). A helper function was also added to format a string into multiple lines. In student_task_controller a new instance variable was created to capture all the student tasks that are overdue in ascending order of dueness. The existing instance variable was used to capture all the tasks that are currently due. 
In the view file i.e list.html.erb, a new table is created to contain a list of past assignments.

== Color code assignments by closeness to due-date ==

The current task-table on the homepage contains all the assignments displayed in white background. So to alert the user of approaching deadlines, we color code the background of each assignment title as red, orange, yellow or green depending on the proximity to its deadline. 
To accomplish the above-mentioned task, we added a helper method for student_task_controller that receives a due_date and calculates the days remaining for that date and then using this value it returns a string which denotes what should be the background of the row.

Separate the list of 'teamed with' students from the current tasks box ==

Currently, the current task lists and the student you have teamed up with are being shown in the same box. We need to separate these two. To achieve this we create an additional box, by adding a new "taskbox" div tag in list.html.erb. So the task list and the teammates are shown in different boxes.

You can find the snapshot of the changes here:

[https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PZeo8QBNOMKlObuy53Kfx6KqbLiRkCxr Separating past assignments with the present ]

[https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gOnzGbT1AZjPQrAbprWfZFfa_1nv2Kyy list.html.erb]

== Test Plan ==

Our project involves mostly changing the view based on certain conditions. The testing of our project is based on simply checking whether the elements on the view change after a certain condition is satisfied, like changing of the background color for tasks as we approach the deadline. For example, if the due date is within a day, then the background color should be red or if it's more than 10 days it should be green.

File:Im1.png

2018-11-10T04:42:12Z

Rrajan3: Separating past assignments with the present

Separating past assignments with the present