|
From: Ross G. <ro...@sa...> - 2002-11-04 15:17:18
|
We need to think about what the 0.1 release will look like. I propose no additional features over what we already have. However, I would like it in a form that means Mike can use it to calculate scores for the Fanfoot.com game. In order to do this I think there are three things left to tackle Outstanding Bugs, Tasks and Feature Requests -------------------------------------------- I propose that any bug, feature request or taks with a priority of 7 or higher should be included in the 0.1 release. Therefore, if you want ot see something in the 0.1 release please either add it to SF now or up the priority of exeisitng items to at least 7. Presentation of results ----------------------- There are currently two tasks relating to this, Mike needs to see the player ID number as well as the player name, and the "prettiness" of the output needs to be improved. Both of these are only a matter of improving the Scores2HTML.xsl in src/resources/conf Error Trapping -------------- There is currently the facility to flag many errors in the calculation of scores. However, some can still slip through. I can see two ways of improving this situation: Scrape two information sources and compare the results. If the two coincide then we assume it is a valid event, otherwise we flag it for manual verification. This would provide two types of event a confirmed one and an unconfirmed one. We can then publish two scores for each player/team, a total confirmed score and a total unconfirmed score. Doing this would require some changes to the way the events are created, but would allow people to "dispute" scores. A disputed score could be marked as unconfirmed, only becoming confirmed again when manually verified by the games administrator. The second way is simpler to implement, but may allow more errors to creep through. In this instance we need to think of as many sanity checks for the data as we can (for example, the number of goal scorers should be equal to the number of goals scored) and encode these in a verification document (which would be XSL). Of course we can do both if we think it's needed. Any preferences/ideas? Ross |