adding AC problems for runestone testing #2424
Conversation
|
Thanks for formulating this PR. Very sorry if I missed this contribution in some other format. The problems that are in the Should I proceed and just remove those few problems? |
|
When #2336 is merged, local .pg files become usable. As in, local to your computer. I can't think right off top of my head if they are usable with a 2.18-or-below server, but definitely usable with 2.19. So the |
|
Since Chrissy's questions are on the runestone webwork server and are illustrative of problem areas we experienced it would be good to have them in there. Could we create a RunestoneAcademy version that would include said questions when built for RA? Maybe the solution Alex just proposed as I was typing this is better. |
|
OK, @bnmnetp wants them all. @Tanaquil18: could you rewtite the six problems from That would really be the best for using this for testing, on and off, Runestone. Versions are a possibility, but come with their own baggage. |
|
If anything is going to be rewritten here anyway... I would appreciate it if you can tend to the indentation. I have to work with this file a lot and it's helpful to have it logically indented. Another thing: there are large blocks of content commented out here. (Some solutions, at least one exercise, maybe more.) Would you go through and make decisions to (a) uncomment them (b) delete them, or (c) intentionally decide it is best to keep them commented? There should be a compelling reason for doing (c) that is explained in a comment. Some "exercise" have a label, some do not. Best to go ahead now and give all of them a label. Some of these are OPL problem files and I am uncertain about if these belong here. Because in some cases (at minimum, the last two) the issue is not our issue. It's entirely how badly the OPL problem was coded. I don't have advice for what to do about this (leave the OPL problems in this PR versus take them out) but I thought it worth mentioning. |
|
Thanks, @Alex-Jordan. Yes, nothing should be commentd out - it confuses testing when you are looking (grep'ing) for problems. And, if a problem is in the OPL and not authored in a way PreTeXt can digest it, then it doesn't belong here. |
|
It's okay. I posted on -dev at the time, but no one responded and I didn't
follow up.
OK, @bnmnetp wants them *all*. @Tanaquil18 could you rewtite the six problems from csafranski in PreTeXt source syntax, much like the (big) ajordan_8a-_2_Preview_sine_Taylor problem?
In a word, no. I am not good enough to do that. I invested a bunch of time
on my sabbatical in learning to write webwork-in-pretext-source, and I
successfully wrote about 15 problems for another project, and then I gave
up and went back to using .pg files on a server for all later problems. One
of the issues is that my webwork knowledge far outpaces my
webwork-in-pretext knowledge; it was easy enough to find examples in the
sample webwork chapter to mimic for simple questions with a single number
or formula answer expected but I tend to use a lot of multi-part questions,
often with custom feedback and answer checkers. I had the Chapter 8a
previews that Alex wrote to look at, which were very helpful, but I still
had a lot of trouble writing non-simple webwork problems in pretext. I am
very happy about the 2.19 PR feature that allows local problems written in
.pg, as that seems like a great compromise between completeness and
portability of a pretext project and usability in practice.
I think the old OPL problems should be in the test document. As far as I
recall, PreTeXt digested those old OPL problems just fine, and that's why
they were in use in AC, but the old coding didn't play well with Runestone
as far as restoring answers. I *think* checking answers and giving credit
for correct responses worked, but it's been a while now so I'm not
positive What if the protocol for the interaction between WebWorK and
Runestone changes? Seems to me like the problems should be there for
testing since pretext authors can include them. Of course, somebody might
update those problems in the OPL, and then they wouldn't be exceptional or
useful for testing anymore.
I thought I usually explained in a comment why things were included but
commented out. One problem broke compilation of all the webwork problems in
my project, even though the same problem was working fine in ac-single with
a different webwork server. I believe that was the same webwork problem
that recently caused Brad and Alex trouble, and Alex figured out it was due
to an image permission issue (I don't understand it, but they did), and so
the problem might/should work now if uncommented. In a different problem, a
solution Alex wrote was commented out because it made the problem too long,
but if 2.19 has changed to a different protocol and problems can be longer,
we can try uncommenting it. (Although I don't think Runestone has any way
to show solutions to webwork problems that aren't visible from the start,
at least as of now.)
I can work on the indentation and labels and revisit/review my commenting
decisions, maybe in a week when Spring Break starts.
Chrissy
…On Fri, Feb 28, 2025, 3:12 PM Rob Beezer ***@***.***> wrote:
Thanks, @Alex-Jordan <https://github.com/Alex-Jordan>. Yes, nothing
should be commentd out - it confuses testing when you are looking
(grep'ing) for problems.
And, if a problem is in the OPL and not authored in a way PreTeXt can
digest it, then it doesn't belong here.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#2424 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB4353JX77J2WZQ7TQSHR3D2SC7MJAVCNFSM6AAAAABX3NDKG6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDMOJRGQ3DQMRTHA>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
[image: rbeezer]*rbeezer* left a comment (PreTeXtBook/pretext#2424)
<#2424 (comment)>
Thanks, @Alex-Jordan <https://github.com/Alex-Jordan>. Yes, nothing
should be commentd out - it confuses testing when you are looking
(grep'ing) for problems.
And, if a problem is in the OPL and not authored in a way PreTeXt can
digest it, then it doesn't belong here.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#2424 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB4353JX77J2WZQ7TQSHR3D2SC7MJAVCNFSM6AAAAABX3NDKG6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDMOJRGQ3DQMRTHA>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
These are the problems (with my commentary) Matt and I had identified 1.5 years ago as problematic or previously problematic and good for testing. I built it as part of a separate project at that time, deployed here, but I haven't tried building either as part of this repository or at all since that time.