Re: [csms-dev] Thinking about the 0.1 release

[Stuart G. <st...@wk...>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Gardler" <ro...@sa...>
To: <csm...@li...>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:16 PM
Subject: [csms-dev] Thinking about the 0.1 release


> 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

Stuart Gardler wrote
I think I could help with the Scores2HTML.xsl if everyone is ok with it.
My current problem of a very slow PC is frustrating and is stopping me from
being more active at this time.
I expect to remedy this situation in the very near future.



>
> 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).

Stuart Gardler wrote:
My preference would be to follow the simpler route at this stage.



>
> Of course we can do both if we think it's needed.
>
> Any preferences/ideas?
>
> Ross
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCon, November 18-21 in
> Las Vegas (supported by COMDEX), the only Apache event to be
> fully supported by the ASF. http://www.apachecon.com
> _______________________________________________
> CSMS-developer mailing list
> CSM...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/csms-developer