Menu
▾
▴
phpesp-devel — Discussion of the development of phpESP
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(103) |
Apr
(37) |
May
(45) |
Jun
(49) |
Jul
(55) |
Aug
(11) |
Sep
(47) |
Oct
(55) |
Nov
(47) |
Dec
(8) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 |
Jan
(43) |
Feb
(85) |
Mar
(121) |
Apr
(37) |
May
(33) |
Jun
(33) |
Jul
(14) |
Aug
(34) |
Sep
(58) |
Oct
(68) |
Nov
(31) |
Dec
(9) |
| 2004 |
Jan
(13) |
Feb
(57) |
Mar
(37) |
Apr
(26) |
May
(57) |
Jun
(14) |
Jul
(8) |
Aug
(12) |
Sep
(32) |
Oct
(10) |
Nov
(7) |
Dec
(12) |
| 2005 |
Jan
(8) |
Feb
(25) |
Mar
(50) |
Apr
(20) |
May
(32) |
Jun
(20) |
Jul
(83) |
Aug
(25) |
Sep
(17) |
Oct
(14) |
Nov
(32) |
Dec
(27) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(24) |
Feb
(15) |
Mar
(46) |
Apr
(5) |
May
(6) |
Jun
(9) |
Jul
(12) |
Aug
(5) |
Sep
(7) |
Oct
(7) |
Nov
(4) |
Dec
(5) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(4) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(7) |
Apr
(3) |
May
(4) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
|
Nov
(22) |
Dec
(19) |
| 2008 |
Jan
(94) |
Feb
(19) |
Mar
(32) |
Apr
(46) |
May
(20) |
Jun
(10) |
Jul
(11) |
Aug
(20) |
Sep
(16) |
Oct
(12) |
Nov
(13) |
Dec
|
| 2009 |
Jan
|
Feb
(9) |
Mar
(37) |
Apr
(65) |
May
(15) |
Jun
|
Jul
(24) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(8) |
Oct
(4) |
Nov
(21) |
Dec
(5) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(35) |
Feb
(6) |
Mar
(8) |
Apr
|
May
(4) |
Jun
(3) |
Jul
(4) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2011 |
Jan
|
Feb
(4) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-19 00:37:05
|
Bugs item #2773387, was opened at 2009-04-19 10:36 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by kainea You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2773387&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: User Group: 2.1.2 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Kaine Aromataris (kainea) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Skipped sections display empty page Initial Comment: I have a survey split into several pages by using section breaks. Early in the Survey I have a question which is designed to end the survey if a certain answer is given. I have set up the survey to skip every question after that if a particular answer is given. Unfortunately it still brings up every section with no questions on it. So you have to click next page 6 or 7 times to get through the empty pages and to the end of the survey. If all the questions in a section are skipped, that section page should also be skipped. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2773387&group_id=8956 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-18 16:29:17
|
Bugs item #2772620, was opened at 2009-04-18 10:35 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bishopb You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2772620&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: User Group: 2.1.2 >Status: Closed >Resolution: Invalid Priority: 5 >Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) >Assigned to: bishop (bishopb) Summary: !other not being translated Initial Comment: There does not seem to be a "Other" option in the translation files. Therefor no matter what language you are using you will always get "Other" written in English. I can be contacted on bugreport at kaine dot info ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-04-18 12:29 Message: According to the help documentation, available by clicking "Help" when creating or editing a survey: An "Other" box defaults to using the prompt "Other:", but is configurable by using the format: !other=prompt text ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2772620&group_id=8956 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-18 14:35:41
|
Bugs item #2772620, was opened at 2009-04-18 14:35 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by nobody You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2772620&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: User Group: 2.1.2 Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: Yes Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: !other not being translated Initial Comment: There does not seem to be a "Other" option in the translation files. Therefor no matter what language you are using you will always get "Other" written in English. I can be contacted on bugreport at kaine dot info ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2772620&group_id=8956 |
|
From: Bishop B. <ph...@id...> - 2009-04-18 02:14:26
|
Team,
Doug Stewart (copied on this email) is offering a USD 50 bounty for
the completion of SFID 2771740 ("Display feedback for possible
answer") within 30 calendar days.
Here is the relevant part from an email exchange we had:
"The phpESP software meets my requirements, with one missing
capability. I think that this capability would be of general use and I
would be willing to make a small contribution to its development, if
it could be done quickly.
...
I'm only looking at creating a couple of surveys. I've a designer who
can create one for me for about $50, which I can then copy and modify
as needed. I'm guessing that $50 doesn't come anywhere close to
covering the costs of making the changes. On the other hand, I think
that what I propose would be of interest to a fair number of people.
Furthermore, based on my research, it is functionality which isn't
widely available, so not only useful, but also will set phpESP apart.
So, given the choice between paying $50 for custom development that
benefits only me and making a contribution of $50 to something that
benefits many people, I would choose to go with the latter."
I'm not sure there's a protocol for how to handle bounty, but I'm
guessing it's first-come-first-served or split-between-contributors.
So, if you want it, or want to help with it, speak up!
Regards,
bishop
--
Bishop Bettini
ideacode, Inc.
(main) +1 919 341 5170 / (fax) +1 919 521 4100
Visit us on the web at:
ideacode.com Professional software research and development
reviewmysoftware.com Improve sales! Review your software before you release
bytejar.com Solutions to those annoying development problems
|
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-18 01:27:50
|
Feature Requests item #2771740, was opened at 2009-04-17 21:27 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by bishopb You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=358956&aid=2771740&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: survey format Group: None Status: Open Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: bishop (bishopb) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Display feedback for possible answer Initial Comment: In some circumstances (usually when "grading" a survey as an examination), the survey designer wants to provide feedback about the particular answer chosen. For example, consider this survey: Title: "Are you ready to move to France?". Question 1: "How much French do you speak?" Possible Answers: None A few words Conversational Fluent If the respondent selects "None", the survey designer wants to present some text impressing the importance of knowing French, perhaps with hyperlinks to resources on-line. But if the respondent selects "Conversational", the survey designer wants to tell them that they can move to France, but they need to improve their skill to take a professional position. Or this survey: Title: "All About the Moon" Question 1: "The moon is made of..." Possible Answers: Rock Cheese If the respondent chooses rock, the feedback could be "That's right!". But if the respondent chooses cheese, the feedback could be "That's wrong!". So, the scope of this ticket is to add feedback text to each possible answer, like (assuming SFID 2771716 completed): LABEL CREDIT FEEDBACK 1. [_____________________] [____] [________________________________] 2. [_____________________] [____] [________________________________] 3. [_____________________] [____] [________________________________] 4. [_____________________] [____] [________________________________] 5. [_____________________] [____] [________________________________] 6. [_____________________] [____] [________________________________] 7. [_____________________] [____] [________________________________] 8. [_____________________] [____] [________________________________] 9. [_____________________] [____] [________________________________] 10. [_____________________] [____] [________________________________] Note: The feedback may be either a text input or a text area; text area is preferred but space limitations on the UI may dictate a text input. Feedback is shown at the next section break or end of survey, which ever comes first. So, if a survey has two sections with 10 questions in each section, then any feedback for the first 10 questions is shown between the 1st & 2nd section, and feedback for the last 10 questions is shown at the end of the survey. Feedback is shown as follows: This is the question that was asked? Your Choice: The respondent chose this. Feedback: This is the feedback entered for this possible answer. If question numbering is engaged, the question number should appear in front of the question text. If no feedback is entered for the respondent's selected choice, no feedback is shown. That is, the question, the choice and the feedback section are all omitted; this ensures visual backwards compatibility. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=358956&aid=2771740&group_id=8956 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-18 01:08:58
|
Feature Requests item #2771716, was opened at 2009-04-17 21:08 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by bishopb You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=358956&aid=2771716&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: survey format Group: None Status: Open Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: bishop (bishopb) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Allow possible answers to have associated "credit" Initial Comment: The core of phpESP functionality is "ask question, record answer." This functionality applies to surveys ("tell me your opinion") and to examinations ("tell me what you know"). However, examinations get graded, which means each possible answer contributes numerically to an overall score. For example, say you have a 20 question exam with a 100 point scale. Each question is worth 5 points. Some questions may have a strictly right answer (credit=5), while the rest are strictly wrong (credit=0). Other questions may have strictly right, partially right (credit=4, 3, 2, or 1), and strictly wrong answers. The survey designer makes these decisions when creating their examination. The scope of this feature request is to add a "credit" value for each possible answer in a question supporting possible answers (Yes/No, Radio, Checkbox, Rate, etc.) This would be added as an additional column in the answer matrix on the question definition of the survey creator. For every answer entry box, there would be an entry box into which a number may be entered. This is the response "credit". For example: LABEL CREDIT 1. [_____________________] [____] 2. [_____________________] [____] 3. [_____________________] [____] 4. [_____________________] [____] 5. [_____________________] [____] 6. [_____________________] [____] 7. [_____________________] [____] 8. [_____________________] [____] 9. [_____________________] [____] 10. [_____________________] [____] The "possible score" is the sum of the all maximum possible response credits. For example, 20 questions, each with a maximum credit of 5, yields a "possible score" of 100. Since the "possible score" is constant, it should be computed and stored in the survey definition. For a completed survey, the "score" is the sum of all specific response's credit. For example, 20 questions, each with a maximum credit of 5, all strictly right/strictly wrong questions, missing one would yield a "score" of 95. Since this is constant once the response is marked as complete, store this in the response definition. Allow the admin to enter any numeric value, including negative and floating point numbers. (Because we cannot predict exotic uses, we should be maximally flexible.) Deny any value that is not numeric. Any question without credits, or any question that does not make use of possible answers, contributes nothing (that is, 0) to the score and possible score. Show the score on the "thank you" page after completing a survey, as "Score: N out of M (P%)". For example, "Score 95 out of 100 (95%)". Also show the score on the "Navigate Individual Respondent Submissions" page, at the top of the page, in the same format as for the thank you page. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=358956&aid=2771716&group_id=8956 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-17 22:24:06
|
Feature Requests item #645278, was opened at 2002-11-28 06:02 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by kswartz You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=358956&aid=645278&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: gui Group: None Status: Open Priority: 3 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: bishop (bishopb) Summary: Link to phpESP Initial Comment: Why not linking the text at the upper left to phpESP-home ? Bye Buelent.Tiknas [@gmx.de] -- my email without whitespaces (to reduce spam) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: kswartz (kswartz) Date: 2009-04-17 15:23 Message: I like the approach that the authors of Gallery take: only display this on administrative pages; user pages say nothing about the tool, allowing the administrator/deployers to customize it as they see fit (e.g.: a link to the company's IT group responsible for supporting the application). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-04-17 14:14 Message: Possibly want to make the link configuration driven, so that the installation can override if they have a specific 'interim' page explaining a custom version. That is, company uses phpESP for core functionality, but tweaks it slightly for their needs. They want to link to a tweaked version information page, then that page can link back to phpESP. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-04-17 14:12 Message: Makes sense to me: +1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=358956&aid=645278&group_id=8956 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-17 21:14:14
|
Feature Requests item #645278, was opened at 2002-11-28 09:02 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bishopb You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=358956&aid=645278&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: gui Group: None Status: Open >Priority: 3 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: bishop (bishopb) Summary: Link to phpESP Initial Comment: Why not linking the text at the upper left to phpESP-home ? Bye Buelent.Tiknas [@gmx.de] -- my email without whitespaces (to reduce spam) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-04-17 17:14 Message: Possibly want to make the link configuration driven, so that the installation can override if they have a specific 'interim' page explaining a custom version. That is, company uses phpESP for core functionality, but tweaks it slightly for their needs. They want to link to a tweaked version information page, then that page can link back to phpESP. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-04-17 17:12 Message: Makes sense to me: +1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=358956&aid=645278&group_id=8956 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-17 21:12:38
|
Feature Requests item #645278, was opened at 2002-11-28 09:02 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bishopb You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=358956&aid=645278&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: gui Group: None Status: Open Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) >Assigned to: bishop (bishopb) Summary: Link to phpESP Initial Comment: Why not linking the text at the upper left to phpESP-home ? Bye Buelent.Tiknas [@gmx.de] -- my email without whitespaces (to reduce spam) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-04-17 17:12 Message: Makes sense to me: +1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=358956&aid=645278&group_id=8956 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-17 21:11:54
|
Feature Requests item #1969585, was opened at 2008-05-22 09:32 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bishopb You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=358956&aid=1969585&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: survey format Group: None >Status: Closed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Conditional Questions Initial Comment: Would it be possible in a future version to have conditional question logic or skip question logic. Where if the tool were used as a satisfaction survey and the question was "Are you happy with your experience of our site" if the user chooses yes, they would skip 5 questions but if they select No they are asked why they weren't happy with their experience. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-04-17 17:11 Message: No feedback from originator, and developers agree this is already in. Closing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthew Gregg (greggmc) Date: 2008-05-22 09:42 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=14116 Originator: NO Have seen the condition logic already in the current version? I'm pretty sure that can be adapted for this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Franky Van Liedekerke (liedekef) Date: 2008-05-22 09:42 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=109671 Originator: NO This is already possible in the latest released version (and the one before that ...) Franky ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=358956&aid=1969585&group_id=8956 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-17 21:09:21
|
Feature Requests item #491535, was opened at 2001-12-11 07:54 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bishopb You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=358956&aid=491535&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: No guiding sytstem(forked surveys) Initial Comment: I'm trying to set up an online survey. And what i would like to have as an extra future in your excellent survey system is a future which links questions to each other. I mean that when you give a certain answer to a question you will be given a different question then when you gave another answer. For example you could ask if someone has a car. If he hasn't there is no need to ask him the brand of the car. But if he has it would be nice to give him this question. Sipke Overbeeke ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-04-17 17:09 Message: Isn't this supported by conditional questions? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthew Gregg (greggmc) Date: 2007-01-29 14:30 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=14116 Originator: NO The patch that was supposed to implement this, wasn't completed. IMHO i don't think phpESP will ever support this feature without a complete ground up rewrite. I to do it on top of the exisiting codebase will be a massive hack. If someone think they can do it, I would gladly entertain the patch. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2007-01-27 09:12 Message: Logged In: NO Any idea what happened to this feature? I'm 1.8.2 and I still can't skip over questions. This is really the most lacking feature as I see it because it impacts usability and user friendliness. I can see how it would require an extra step or an enhanced sorting screen though. Dennis ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2007-01-27 09:11 Message: Logged In: NO Any idea what happened to this feature? I'm 1.8.2 and I still can't skip over questions. This is really the most lacking feature as I see it because it impacts usability and user friendliness. I can see how it would require an extra step or an enhanced sorting screen though. Dennis ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2006-02-08 11:16 Message: Logged In: NO This is one of the biggest weeknesses of phpESP. If we had this, I could use it a lot more often. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthew Gregg (greggmc) Date: 2003-03-07 10:58 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=14116 The feature should make it into the 1.7 release. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2003-03-06 20:11 Message: Logged In: NO Thanks, I am looking fot the same feature :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=358956&aid=491535&group_id=8956 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-17 21:00:20
|
Feature Requests item #902807, was opened at 2004-02-23 11:40 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by bishopb You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=358956&aid=902807&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: data analysis Group: None Status: Open Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Jeff (skrysakj) >Assigned to: bishop (bishopb) Summary: Capture browser and OS Initial Comment: It may be helpful to capture the user agent (browser type and version, operating system) automatically or as an option. This is good for those who want it to be tracked but don't want to ask the user a specific question or two in order to obtain it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=358956&aid=902807&group_id=8956 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-17 20:56:28
|
Feature Requests item #820097, was opened at 2003-10-08 13:24 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by bishopb You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=358956&aid=820097&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: survey format Group: None Status: Open Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: winston ford (winstonford) >Assigned to: bishop (bishopb) Summary: add a comments box to each question Initial Comment: Would like to add a comments box, just a textarea, for each question. So regardless of the question format, the respondent would be able to type in comments further explaining or qualifying his or her answer. When creating or editing a question, you currently have options: Length....Precision....Required? maybe add an bool option after Required?.....Comments? If Comments? dropdown was selected "yes", then question would have a textarea titled "Comments" next to question. Any ideas on how to implement appreciated. Whip-arse app yall are building here. thanks, Winston ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-04-17 16:56 Message: I have a one-off implementation for this in my own environment. I'm taking on this ticket to generalize this functionality. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Robsteranium (robsteranium) Date: 2005-09-13 10:31 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1026345 Winston Could you please post the CSS that you used in this workaround - I'd be really interested to see your solution (however unelegant you find it!). Thanks in advance Robin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: winston ford (winstonford) Date: 2003-10-13 21:13 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=694984 our quick fix was to hide the generated number through css and use the 'field name' field to tie the comments box (essay) to the relevant question. this also worked for multi-part questions which the client wanted to show as the same question. not elegant, but done. will report how it works. results are being mapped to access for a custom generated report in word. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: winston ford (winstonford) Date: 2003-10-08 21:13 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=694984 Yes, we're using !other. Great feature, but does not accommodate every question. Effectively, we need to accept comments on every question, even, for instance, when someone chooses and fills out the "other" option. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Matthew Gregg (greggmc) Date: 2003-10-08 13:32 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=14116 Have you looked at the !other option? That allows a comment field for radio/checkbox question types. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=358956&aid=820097&group_id=8956 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-13 19:34:12
|
Bugs item #2669428, was opened at 2009-03-06 15:45 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bishopb You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2669428&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: kswartz (kswartz) Assigned to: bishop (bishopb) Summary: Copying an existing survey does not copy conditions Initial Comment: I'm working with version 2.0.2 of phpESP, and noticed that if you copy an existing survey, it copies everything BUT the conditions. If this isn't fixed in the latest version, please consider it for the next update. (If this IS fixed in 2.1.2, it will probably speed up my upgrade. Only reason I haven't so far is because I made a lot of changes and fixed some bugs in 2.0.2, and wasn't sure how long it would take to copy the changes over.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-04-13 15:34 Message: I have applied this functionality to trunk and tested it in a few different configurations. Note that the final given SQL still had an error: "SELECT NULL, 11,..." the "11" should have been the new survey ID, which I addressed. I applied this change to the survey_copy_questions() helper of survey_aggregate(): so both the survey copy and survey aggregate functionality have access to this new behavior. I also changed the name of the helper function to reflect that it copies both questions and conditions: survey_copy_questions_and_conditions(). Re: the question of iterating an insert over a select: I don't know -- that's the way the original code was written, so it's just been grandfathered in. I did have some concern that the INSERT INTO ... SELECT ... syntax would be problematic for SQLite, but I checked its documentation and we're good there. However, if we ever add a database that doesn't support this construct, we'll need to revisit this section. Future generations be warned. There is no provision to copy conditions for surveys created prior to this fix being implemented, owing to the bug Keith described in SFID 2672129. Franky, since this and SFID 2672129 are now complete, a new release may be tagged. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Franky Van Liedekerke (liedekef) Date: 2009-04-10 03:13 Message: That would be great! Thanks, Bishop. Don't let it ruin the holidays though :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-04-09 19:58 Message: Franky, I'll try and get to them before Monday, 13-April-09. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Franky Van Liedekerke (liedekef) Date: 2009-04-09 17:33 Message: I'm assigning this to Bishop as well, but I'm really planning on releasing a new version after this fix (seems good enough reasons/bugfixes exist now). So Bishop, I don't know if you have the time to look at this and 2672129 any time soon? Franky ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2009-04-09 17:20 Message: Crap, another typo! Man, I wish I could edit these posts. One more time: INSERT INTO conditions (id,survey_id,q1_id,q2_id,cond,cond_value) SELECT NULL, 11, qnew1.id, qnew2.id, cond, cond_value FROM question qold1, question qold2, question qnew1, question qnew2, conditions c WHERE qold1.id=c.q1_id AND qold2.id=c.q2_id AND qold1.survey_id=$old_survey_id and qold2.survey_id=$old_survey_id AND qnew1.survey_id=$new_survey_id AND qnew1.position=qold1.position AND qnew1.deleted=qold1.deleted AND qnew2.survey_id=$new_survey_id AND qnew2.position=qold2.position AND qnew2.deleted=qold2.deleted; ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2009-04-09 17:18 Message: Sorry, the SQL in the last update was missing a line. It should read: INSERT INTO conditions (id,survey_id,q1_id,q2_id,cond,cond_value) SELECT NULL, $new_survey_id, qnew1.id, qnew2.id, cond, cond_value FROM question qold1, question qold2, question qnew1, question qnew2, conditions c WHERE qold1.id=c.q1_id AND qold2.id=c.q2_id AND qold1.survey_id=3 and qold2.survey_id=3 AND qnew1.survey_id=$new_survey_id AND qnew1.position=qold1.position AND qnew1.deleted=qold1.deleted AND qnew2.survey_id=$new_survey_id AND qnew2.position=qold2.position AND qnew2.deleted=qold2.deleted; Just a reminder, too, this enhancement REQUIRES the fix to 2672129 also (which makes copied surveys start with the same position as the original). This SQL cannot be manually applied to previously copied surveys unless the positions between the original and copy are re-aligned by hand, which may or may not be part of the fix to 2672129. (Probably not.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: kswartz (kswartz) Date: 2009-03-08 00:23 Message: (Sorry for the double post before.) Okay, I've looked at survey_aggregate.inc, and I think what I described previously is actually a bug. I've logged a separate bug for this. With that fix in place, this is the SQL I used to copy the conditions from the old survey to the new survey: INSERT INTO conditions (id,survey_id,q1_id,q2_id,cond,cond_value) SELECT NULL, $new_survey_id, qnew1.id, qnew2.id, cond, cond_value FROM question qold1, question qold2, question qnew1, question qnew2, conditions c WHERE qold1.id=c.q1_id AND qold2.id=c.q2_id AND qnew1.survey_id=$new_survey_id AND qnew1.position=qold1.position AND qnew1.deleted=qold1.deleted AND qnew2.survey_id=$new_survey_id AND qnew2.position=qold2.position AND qnew2.deleted=qold2.deleted; I'll work on producing a patch that incorporates this into survey_aggregate.inc Incidentally, I'm not sure why you chose to insert the questions one at a time while cycling through the results of a select. I think all the changes you made to the old data could have been made in SQL. I elected to do an INSERT INTO ... SELECT FROM ... instead, as you can see, as it's much faster. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: kswartz (kswartz) Date: 2009-03-07 23:24 Message: Okay, I've set up 2.1.2, and I may have a patch for this coming, but I've discovered a weird quirk that's affecting the SQL. The starting position for all my surveys (in the question table) is 0. However, when I copy a survey, the starting position is 1. Is that intended behavior? Can I always assume that the value of "position" for a question in a copied survey is always one greater than its counterpart in the original survey? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: kswartz (kswartz) Date: 2009-03-07 14:45 Message: Okay, I've set up 2.1.2, and I may have a patch for this coming, but I've discovered a weird quirk that's affecting the SQL. The starting position for all my surveys (in the question table) is 0. However, when I copy a survey, the starting position is 1. Is that intended behavior? Can I always assume that the value of "position" for a question in a copied survey is always one greater than its counterpart in the original survey? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: kswartz (kswartz) Date: 2009-03-06 19:01 Message: That's cool - it's not a feature I use very often, which is why it took so long to say anything. Next time I go to do this, I'll add a comment to the request with the SQL necessary to do the copy (which is the hard part). If I have time to actually fix the code, I'll gladly supply a patch. (And yes, I'll upgrade to 2.1.2 first. :) ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Franky Van Liedekerke (liedekef) Date: 2009-03-06 18:40 Message: Hi, sorry, but I don't think it is fixed in 2.1.2 (it was known to me though, and I'm pretty sure I documented it somewhere...) But feel free to make any contribution, be it patches, bug fixes, etc ... Franky ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2669428&group_id=8956 |
|
From: Keith S. <ph...@on...> - 2009-04-13 18:44:59
|
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Thanks for the replies, Franky.<br> <br> First, very happy to hear those two dashboard issues have already been caught and fixed.<br> <br> Second, my apologies for the problems with HTML posting. I was unaware the list manager was going to warp it. Clearly, no more of that.<br> <br> Third, I'll pick up either the latest official release or the trunk before submitting any patches. I believe everything else will still apply.<br> <br> Lastly, just an observation: I think my experience in software has me treating the term "enhancement" differently from you. In my eyes, each of the items I listed below constitutes a bug, because even though the application works, and doesn't throw an error, I consider the behavior to be fundamentally wrong. To me, an enhancement is something that is "nice to have", but is not necessary, and/or only useful for a subset of users.<br> <br> But this is just a matter of semantics, because I think we still agree on the value of the change, as you indicated for most of them that what I described is what "should" happen. That's perfectly fine by me -- a rose by any other name, blah blah blah. (Not an English major.)<br> <br> Cheers!<br> <br> --<br> Keith<br> <br> <br> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:02:19 -0700<br> Keith Swartz <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:phpesp@on..."><phpesp@on...></a> wrote:<br> <br> > Greetings,<br> > <br> > I sure hope this list isn't particularly large. I've been using<br> > phpesp for several months now, and have made numerous fixes and<br> > enhancements to the project, which I'd like to give back to the<br> > community.<br> > <br> > Before logging bugs and submitting patches willy-nilly, I wanted to<br> > do my first round via the developers list. I welcome any comments on<br> > these before I submit patches and log bugs -- I want to make sure I'm<br> > staying consistent with the community that has worked on it for so<br> > long, and that I remain close to the mission of the product, not<br> > expecting it to do things it wasn't meant to do. Also, think of this<br> > as my attempt to introduce myself and describe how much I've looked<br> > at the product. :)<br> > <br> > Here's the list of major issues I plan to attack, in about this order.<br> > Signup fails: realm is not quoted in INSERT statement Account<br> > creation always fails: the insert statement into the respondent table<br> > is the culprit, because the value of realm is not in single quotes.<br> > (I gotta wonder, though -- how could this not have come up as a bug<br> > already?)<br> <br> Hi Keith, it has come up lately :-) And fixed in the git repo. And<br> another fix is in progress and being tested by Bishop (hopefully<br> completed this week). Then I'll release a new version that contains the<br> latest fixes.<br> So for now I would suggest: get the git and do your patches against<br> that. See the latest version of CHANGELOG at<br> <a href="http://phpesp.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/phpesp/trunk/phpESP/" target="_NEW">http://phpesp.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/phpesp/trunk/phpESP/</a><br> <br> > Resume survey link broken after saving in test mode Link to<br> > resume survey after saving in test mode is missing the survey name.<br> > <br> > Emailed survey results must display questions ordered by position,<br> > not by id Emailed survey results display questions/answers by order<br> > of id, rather than by order they are shown in application. If you<br> > add/remove questions several times, the IDs will definitely not<br> > represent the order in which the questions are presented. The results<br> > could be extremely confusing or even wrong, especially if questions<br> > are worded in such a way that you need to read them in order. (For<br> > example, if a question just says, "If not, why not?")<br> <br> not a bug, but an enhancement :-) But you're correct. It should be.<br> <br> > [Related enhancement: add the question number to the email. I have<br> > found that when respondents typically correspond with the survey<br> > administrator, or with other respondents, they reference questions by<br> > their number, since it's prominently displayed in the survey. For<br> > instance, "I didn't understand question 12." By including it in the<br> > results that are emailed, it allows the two to be correlated.]<br> <br> not a bug, but an enhancement :-) But you're correct. It could be (but<br> should be optional).<br> <br> > View private survey results by username i/o rid To view survey<br> > results, the admin must select from a random number counter. This<br> > number is of no meaning to anyone, so doesn't serve well as a lookup<br> > key. With the current implementation, it is impossible to look up<br> > survey results for a specific user, which is a common use case for<br> > private surveys.<br> <br> again an enhancement. And again a good one :-)<br> <br> > The drop-down should display the username in it so its contents can<br> > potentially be identified. My solution is to display the username,<br> > followed by the response ID (rather than a generated counter) in<br> > parentheses after it. The response ID is included because, unlike the<br> > counter, this value doesn't change. So an admin might remember, "Oh<br> > yeah, joeuser's survey with ID 145 is the one with the weird<br> > answers", and easily retrieve it.<br> <br> again an enhancement. And again a good one :-)<br> But a counter is also nice sometimes, so keep both if possible. Some<br> admins like the counter (even more when the admin is not very technical<br> at all).<br> <br> > For public surveys, it should display only the response_id, rather<br> > than an incremental counter. This is a minor improvement, but a<br> > useful one, because -- again -- the number will remain fixed. So<br> > looking up the results for survey 45 will ALWAYS show the results for<br> > survey 45, even if other surveys or results end up getting purged,<br> > which may change the number if it were just counting rows returned by<br> > a SQL query.<br> <br> well ... wether you use the response id or not, it doesn't say much,<br> since it's public. If a regular (again non-technical) admin looks at<br> results, he sometimes likes it more to see a counter . Sometimes it's<br> easier to say "look at 25th response ..." instead of "look at response<br> with ID 247"<br> <br> > This fix doesn't solve every use case -- it only goes so far with<br> > multiple submissions -- but it's a vast improvement. A further<br> > improvement, which I included, sorts the drop-down box by username<br> > followed by response ID, for the same reason.<br> > <br> > This can be done for public surveys as well as private ones, but it's<br> > much more meaningful for private ones, as querying by IP address is<br> > going to be almost as useless as querying by response id. My fix only<br> > applies to private surveys, although a future enhancement could add a<br> > config option to control this. The first two, by the way, are very<br> > easy one-line fixes. If someone can easily verify that the first one<br> > is a bug for all users, I'd advocate putting that into the upcoming<br> > release. The others can probably wait a little bit if nobody else has<br> > really complained, and I can provide fixes for those once the<br> > impending release branches.<br> > <br> > Cheers.<br> > -- Keith<br> > <br> <br> Already thanks for any work done on phpESP, it helps to make it better<br> all the time!<br> <br> Franky <!-- google_ad_section_end --> <pre class="moz-signature" cols="76"> </pre> </body> </html> |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-13 17:43:29
|
Bugs item #2672129, was opened at 2009-03-08 00:21 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by bishopb You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2672129&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Admin Group: None >Status: Closed Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: kswartz (kswartz) Assigned to: bishop (bishopb) Summary: Copy survey reorders positions starting with 1 instead of 0 Initial Comment: When you initialize $pos before looping through the calls to survey_copy_questions, you set it to 1, so the first copied question has position=1. However, when you define questions for a survey, the first question's position is set to 0. The application works fine with this bug in place UNTIL you go to copy conditions. That requires matching the questions from the new survey and the old survey, and the only way to do that is to match on the columns position and deleted. With this bug, however, the position columns do not correspond, so the question that was in position 1 in the old survey is in position 2 in the new survey. The fix requires changing only two lines in survey_aggregate.inc: $ diff survey_aggregate_old.inc survey_aggregate.inc 74c74 < $pos = 1; --- > $pos = 0; 85c85 < function survey_copy_questions($sid, $new_sid, $pos = 1) { --- > function survey_copy_questions($sid, $new_sid, $pos = 0) { ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-04-13 13:42 Message: After reviewing the code further, I believe that (a) initializing the position to 0 during copy is correct and (b) the original survey_copy() code (on which survey_aggregate() is based) was incorrect. For example, in admin/include/function/survey_update.inc:326-330, we have: 326 for($i = 0; $i < count($order); $i++) { 327 $ord = _addslashes($order[$i]); 328 $sql = "UPDATE ".$GLOBALS['ESPCONFIG']['question_table']." SET position=$i WHERE id=$ord AND survey_id=$sid"; 329 execute_sql($sql); 330 } That is a 0-based loop. Other places in the code assume question positions start at 0. I have just now committed this change to trunk. I will commit SFID 2669428 ("Copying an existing survey does not copy conditions") separately. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2009-04-08 03:34 Message: Basically, that's true. The point is that when you copy the questions from one survey to another, the position values must remain the same. It's okay if some are 0 and some are 1, just as long as the source and destination match. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Franky Van Liedekerke (liedekef) Date: 2009-03-23 16:31 Message: Well, I don't think it matters :-) Or more: to fix the ones starting at "1" would be very troublesome ... the damage there is already done (if you have conditions in place). But after the fix is in place, it wouldn't matter: you start at position 0 in source and destination, even if position 0 is not defined it should still be ok, no? Franky ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: kswartz (kswartz) Date: 2009-03-08 23:45 Message: I haven't looked through the code yet for the initial "0" position, but I can say that every survey I've created has 0 as the value of position for the first question. I would expect that this gets set when using the section to reorder the questions in creating a new survey. One question (no pun intended) is whether or not it starts with "0" if you do NOT reorder the questions; i.e.: if you only create a question and exit. However, I think it doesn't really matter, and here's why... As soon as we introduce the code to copy conditions (which is dependent on this change), it's going to rely on the fact that positions between original and copied surveys always start with the same value. Today, some surveys will start with 0 and some start with 1. So the next release will have to include an upgrade script that cleans this up, by updating the position column so that ALL surveys start with the same value. I'm inclined to say that value should be 0, based on what I'm seeing from the surveys I've created from scratch and your last comment, bishopb. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-03-08 15:50 Message: I am inclined to think that 0 is the correct position, and since I was the most recent to work in that area of the (really old) code, I'll take on this issue. kswartz: are you seeing the initial definition of 0 somewhere specifically in the code, or only as a post facto artifact in the generated rows? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Franky Van Liedekerke (liedekef) Date: 2009-03-08 13:27 Message: Hmmm ... I don't remember as well, probably the oldest programmer for that part was way before me ... Franky ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-03-08 08:15 Message: survey_aggregate() is a generalization of the original survey_copy() code, and in fact the survey_copy_questions() helper function is a direct descendant of the original survey_copy(). In the original survey_copy(), $pos was initialized to 1: 65 $pos=1; 66 array_shift($question_fields); 67 while($question = fetch_row($result)) { 68 $result->MoveNext(); 69 $tid = $question['type_id']; 70 $qid = $question['id']; 71 // fix some fields first 72 $question['survey_id'] = $new_sid; 73 $question['position'] = $pos++; So, I can say that if this is a bug, it's existed for a while. Is anyone here familiar with the older code from survey_copy() that can comment on this? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: kswartz (kswartz) Date: 2009-03-08 00:22 Message: File Added: survey_aggregate.inc ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2672129&group_id=8956 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-13 17:42:55
|
Bugs item #2672129, was opened at 2009-03-08 00:21 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bishopb You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2672129&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Admin Group: None Status: Open >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: kswartz (kswartz) Assigned to: bishop (bishopb) Summary: Copy survey reorders positions starting with 1 instead of 0 Initial Comment: When you initialize $pos before looping through the calls to survey_copy_questions, you set it to 1, so the first copied question has position=1. However, when you define questions for a survey, the first question's position is set to 0. The application works fine with this bug in place UNTIL you go to copy conditions. That requires matching the questions from the new survey and the old survey, and the only way to do that is to match on the columns position and deleted. With this bug, however, the position columns do not correspond, so the question that was in position 1 in the old survey is in position 2 in the new survey. The fix requires changing only two lines in survey_aggregate.inc: $ diff survey_aggregate_old.inc survey_aggregate.inc 74c74 < $pos = 1; --- > $pos = 0; 85c85 < function survey_copy_questions($sid, $new_sid, $pos = 1) { --- > function survey_copy_questions($sid, $new_sid, $pos = 0) { ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-04-13 13:42 Message: After reviewing the code further, I believe that (a) initializing the position to 0 during copy is correct and (b) the original survey_copy() code (on which survey_aggregate() is based) was incorrect. For example, in admin/include/function/survey_update.inc:326-330, we have: 326 for($i = 0; $i < count($order); $i++) { 327 $ord = _addslashes($order[$i]); 328 $sql = "UPDATE ".$GLOBALS['ESPCONFIG']['question_table']." SET position=$i WHERE id=$ord AND survey_id=$sid"; 329 execute_sql($sql); 330 } That is a 0-based loop. Other places in the code assume question positions start at 0. I have just now committed this change to trunk. I will commit SFID 2669428 ("Copying an existing survey does not copy conditions") separately. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2009-04-08 03:34 Message: Basically, that's true. The point is that when you copy the questions from one survey to another, the position values must remain the same. It's okay if some are 0 and some are 1, just as long as the source and destination match. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Franky Van Liedekerke (liedekef) Date: 2009-03-23 16:31 Message: Well, I don't think it matters :-) Or more: to fix the ones starting at "1" would be very troublesome ... the damage there is already done (if you have conditions in place). But after the fix is in place, it wouldn't matter: you start at position 0 in source and destination, even if position 0 is not defined it should still be ok, no? Franky ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: kswartz (kswartz) Date: 2009-03-08 23:45 Message: I haven't looked through the code yet for the initial "0" position, but I can say that every survey I've created has 0 as the value of position for the first question. I would expect that this gets set when using the section to reorder the questions in creating a new survey. One question (no pun intended) is whether or not it starts with "0" if you do NOT reorder the questions; i.e.: if you only create a question and exit. However, I think it doesn't really matter, and here's why... As soon as we introduce the code to copy conditions (which is dependent on this change), it's going to rely on the fact that positions between original and copied surveys always start with the same value. Today, some surveys will start with 0 and some start with 1. So the next release will have to include an upgrade script that cleans this up, by updating the position column so that ALL surveys start with the same value. I'm inclined to say that value should be 0, based on what I'm seeing from the surveys I've created from scratch and your last comment, bishopb. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-03-08 15:50 Message: I am inclined to think that 0 is the correct position, and since I was the most recent to work in that area of the (really old) code, I'll take on this issue. kswartz: are you seeing the initial definition of 0 somewhere specifically in the code, or only as a post facto artifact in the generated rows? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Franky Van Liedekerke (liedekef) Date: 2009-03-08 13:27 Message: Hmmm ... I don't remember as well, probably the oldest programmer for that part was way before me ... Franky ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-03-08 08:15 Message: survey_aggregate() is a generalization of the original survey_copy() code, and in fact the survey_copy_questions() helper function is a direct descendant of the original survey_copy(). In the original survey_copy(), $pos was initialized to 1: 65 $pos=1; 66 array_shift($question_fields); 67 while($question = fetch_row($result)) { 68 $result->MoveNext(); 69 $tid = $question['type_id']; 70 $qid = $question['id']; 71 // fix some fields first 72 $question['survey_id'] = $new_sid; 73 $question['position'] = $pos++; So, I can say that if this is a bug, it's existed for a while. Is anyone here familiar with the older code from survey_copy() that can comment on this? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: kswartz (kswartz) Date: 2009-03-08 00:22 Message: File Added: survey_aggregate.inc ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2672129&group_id=8956 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-13 17:10:34
|
Bugs item #2119492, was opened at 2008-09-19 11:16 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by bishopb You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2119492&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Admin Group: None Status: Closed Resolution: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: bishop (bishopb) >Summary: open/close date not quoted when saved, causing db save fail Initial Comment: The opening and closing date are not allowed to left empty. (At least my mysql did not accept an empty string). I changed some code in \admin\include\function\survey_update.inc to handle this. At the moment it's not clear how to enter the opening and closing dates. Maybe it's nice to have a calendar interface for these dates. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-04-13 13:09 Message: This isn't a bug, at least insofar as the survey_update.inc provided doesn't include the open_date and close_date fields in the $files array on line 41. Because those fields are absent, they are not quoted. Because they are not quoted, your database complains. When these fields are included (as they are in trunk and should be in all versions post 2.1.1) in the $fields array, they are properly quoted and your submitted patch is not necessary. So, thank you for submitting this patch, but I do not think the issue is valid; just get the latest survey_update.inc from trunk and use that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2008-09-25 10:02 Message: What versions of MySQL and PHPESP are you running? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2119492&group_id=8956 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-13 17:09:42
|
Bugs item #2119492, was opened at 2008-09-19 11:16 Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by bishopb You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2119492&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Admin Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Invalid Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: bishop (bishopb) Summary: opening/closing date Initial Comment: The opening and closing date are not allowed to left empty. (At least my mysql did not accept an empty string). I changed some code in \admin\include\function\survey_update.inc to handle this. At the moment it's not clear how to enter the opening and closing dates. Maybe it's nice to have a calendar interface for these dates. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-04-13 13:09 Message: This isn't a bug, at least insofar as the survey_update.inc provided doesn't include the open_date and close_date fields in the $files array on line 41. Because those fields are absent, they are not quoted. Because they are not quoted, your database complains. When these fields are included (as they are in trunk and should be in all versions post 2.1.1) in the $fields array, they are properly quoted and your submitted patch is not necessary. So, thank you for submitting this patch, but I do not think the issue is valid; just get the latest survey_update.inc from trunk and use that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2008-09-25 10:02 Message: What versions of MySQL and PHPESP are you running? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2119492&group_id=8956 |
|
From: Franky V. L. <lie...@te...> - 2009-04-12 08:31:03
|
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:05:39 -0700 Keith Swartz <ph...@on...> wrote: > I left one item off my list of major bugs: > Dashboard queries fail -- unable to identify user Dashboard (via > espsurvey.inc) relies on $_SESSION['acl']['username'] to get current > user. However, $_SESSION['acl'] appears to only be set on > administration pages. I think this should be using > $_SESSION['espuser']. This reproduces on both of my systems, but I'm > surprised this, too, hasn't already been caught by someone else. > Cheers. -- Keith AIM/Y! : kswartz26 > this should be fixed as well in SVN. Check it out again. Btw: please don't post in html :-) Franky |
|
From: Franky V. L. <lie...@te...> - 2009-04-12 08:20:28
|
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:02:19 -0700 Keith Swartz <ph...@on...> wrote: > Greetings, > > I sure hope this list isn't particularly large. I've been using > phpesp for several months now, and have made numerous fixes and > enhancements to the project, which I'd like to give back to the > community. > > Before logging bugs and submitting patches willy-nilly, I wanted to > do my first round via the developers list. I welcome any comments on > these before I submit patches and log bugs -- I want to make sure I'm > staying consistent with the community that has worked on it for so > long, and that I remain close to the mission of the product, not > expecting it to do things it wasn't meant to do. Also, think of this > as my attempt to introduce myself and describe how much I've looked > at the product. :) > > Here's the list of major issues I plan to attack, in about this order. > Signup fails: realm is not quoted in INSERT statement Account > creation always fails: the insert statement into the respondent table > is the culprit, because the value of realm is not in single quotes. > (I gotta wonder, though -- how could this not have come up as a bug > already?) Hi Keith, it has come up lately :-) And fixed in the git repo. And another fix is in progress and being tested by Bishop (hopefully completed this week). Then I'll release a new version that contains the latest fixes. So for now I would suggest: get the git and do your patches against that. See the latest version of CHANGELOG at http://phpesp.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/phpesp/trunk/phpESP/ > Resume survey link broken after saving in test mode Link to > resume survey after saving in test mode is missing the survey name. > > Emailed survey results must display questions ordered by position, > not by id Emailed survey results display questions/answers by order > of id, rather than by order they are shown in application. If you > add/remove questions several times, the IDs will definitely not > represent the order in which the questions are presented. The results > could be extremely confusing or even wrong, especially if questions > are worded in such a way that you need to read them in order. (For > example, if a question just says, "If not, why not?") not a bug, but an enhancement :-) But you're correct. It should be. > [Related enhancement: add the question number to the email. I have > found that when respondents typically correspond with the survey > administrator, or with other respondents, they reference questions by > their number, since it's prominently displayed in the survey. For > instance, "I didn't understand question 12." By including it in the > results that are emailed, it allows the two to be correlated.] not a bug, but an enhancement :-) But you're correct. It could be (but should be optional). > View private survey results by username i/o rid To view survey > results, the admin must select from a random number counter. This > number is of no meaning to anyone, so doesn't serve well as a lookup > key. With the current implementation, it is impossible to look up > survey results for a specific user, which is a common use case for > private surveys. again an enhancement. And again a good one :-) > The drop-down should display the username in it so its contents can > potentially be identified. My solution is to display the username, > followed by the response ID (rather than a generated counter) in > parentheses after it. The response ID is included because, unlike the > counter, this value doesn't change. So an admin might remember, "Oh > yeah, joeuser's survey with ID 145 is the one with the weird > answers", and easily retrieve it. again an enhancement. And again a good one :-) But a counter is also nice sometimes, so keep both if possible. Some admins like the counter (even more when the admin is not very technical at all). > For public surveys, it should display only the response_id, rather > than an incremental counter. This is a minor improvement, but a > useful one, because -- again -- the number will remain fixed. So > looking up the results for survey 45 will ALWAYS show the results for > survey 45, even if other surveys or results end up getting purged, > which may change the number if it were just counting rows returned by > a SQL query. well ... wether you use the response id or not, it doesn't say much, since it's public. If a regular (again non-technical) admin looks at results, he sometimes likes it more to see a counter . Sometimes it's easier to say "look at 25th response ..." instead of "look at response with ID 247" > This fix doesn't solve every use case -- it only goes so far with > multiple submissions -- but it's a vast improvement. A further > improvement, which I included, sorts the drop-down box by username > followed by response ID, for the same reason. > > This can be done for public surveys as well as private ones, but it's > much more meaningful for private ones, as querying by IP address is > going to be almost as useless as querying by response id. My fix only > applies to private surveys, although a future enhancement could add a > config option to control this. The first two, by the way, are very > easy one-line fixes. If someone can easily verify that the first one > is a bug for all users, I'd advocate putting that into the upcoming > release. The others can probably wait a little bit if nobody else has > really complained, and I can provide fixes for those once the > impending release branches. > > Cheers. > -- Keith > AIM/Y! : kswartz26 > Already thanks for any work done on phpESP, it helps to make it better all the time! Franky |
|
From: Keith S. <ph...@on...> - 2009-04-12 07:06:01
|
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I left one item off my list of major bugs:<br>
<blockquote>
<dl>
<dt>Dashboard queries fail -- unable to identify user</dt>
<dd>
Dashboard (via espsurvey.inc) relies on $_SESSION['acl']['username'] to
get current user. However, $_SESSION['acl'] appears to only be set on
administration pages. I think this should be using
$_SESSION['espuser']. This reproduces on both of my systems, but I'm
surprised this, too, hasn't already been caught by someone else. </dd>
</dl>
</blockquote>
Cheers.<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="76">-- Keith
AIM/Y! : kswartz26
</pre>
<br>
</body>
</html>
|
|
From: Keith S. <ph...@on...> - 2009-04-12 02:22:18
|
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Greetings,<br>
<br>
I sure hope this list isn't particularly large. I've been using phpesp
for several months now, and have made numerous fixes and enhancements
to the project, which I'd like to give back to the community.<br>
<br>
Before logging bugs and submitting patches willy-nilly, I wanted to do
my first round via the developers list. I
welcome any comments on these before I submit patches and log bugs -- I
want to make sure I'm staying consistent with the community that has
worked on it for so long, and that I remain close to the mission of the
product, not expecting it to do things it wasn't meant to do. Also,
think of this as my attempt to
introduce myself and describe how much I've looked at the product. :)<br>
<br>
Here's the list of major issues I plan to attack, in about this order.<br>
<blockquote>
<dl>
<dt>Signup fails: realm is not quoted in INSERT statement</dt>
<dd>Account creation always fails: the insert statement into the
respondent
table is the culprit, because the value of realm is not in single
quotes. (I gotta wonder, though -- how could this not have come up as a
bug already?)</dd>
<dd><br>
</dd>
<dt>Resume survey link broken after saving in test mode</dt>
<dd>Link to resume survey after saving in test mode is missing the
survey name.<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dt>Emailed survey results must display questions ordered by
position, not by id</dt>
<dd>Emailed survey results display questions/answers by order of
id,
rather than by order they are shown in application. If you add/remove
questions several times, the IDs will definitely not represent the
order in which the questions are presented. The results could be
extremely confusing or even wrong, especially if questions are worded
in such a way that you need to read them in order. (For example, if a
question just says, "If not, why not?")<br>
<br>
[Related <i>enhancement</i>: add the question number to the email. I
have found that when respondents typically correspond with the survey
administrator, or with other respondents, they reference questions by
their number, since it's prominently displayed in the survey. For
instance, "I didn't understand question 12." By including it in the
results that are emailed, it allows the two to be correlated.]<br>
<br>
</dd>
<dt>View private survey results by username i/o rid</dt>
<dd>To view survey results, the admin must select from a random
number
counter. This number is of no meaning to anyone, so doesn't serve well
as a lookup key. With the current implementation, it is impossible to
look up survey results for a specific user, which is a common use case
for private surveys.<br>
<br>
The drop-down should display the username
in it so its contents can potentially be identified. My solution is to
display the username, followed by the response ID (rather than a
generated counter) in parentheses after it. The response ID is included
because, unlike the counter, this value doesn't change. So an admin
might remember, "Oh yeah, joeuser's survey with ID 145 is the one with
the weird answers", and easily retrieve it.<br>
<br>
For public surveys,
it should display only the response_id, rather than an incremental
counter. This is a minor improvement, but a useful one, because --
again -- the number will remain fixed. So looking up the results for
survey 45 will ALWAYS show the results for survey 45, even if other
surveys or results end up getting purged, which may change the number
if it were just counting rows returned by a SQL query.<br>
<br>
This fix
doesn't solve every use case -- it only goes so far with multiple
submissions -- but it's a vast improvement. A further improvement,
which I included, sorts the drop-down box by username followed by
response ID, for the same reason.
<br>
<br>
This can be done for public surveys as well as private ones,
but it's much more meaningful for private ones, as querying by IP
address is going to be almost as useless as querying by response id. My
fix only applies to private surveys, although a future enhancement
could add a config option to control this.<br>
</dd>
</dl>
</blockquote>
The first two, by the way, are very easy one-line fixes. If someone can
easily verify that the first one is a bug for all users, I'd advocate
putting that into the upcoming release. The others can probably wait a
little bit if nobody else has really complained, and I can provide
fixes for those once the impending release branches.<br>
<br>
Cheers.<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="76">-- Keith
AIM/Y! : kswartz26
</pre>
</body>
</html>
|
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-10 07:13:41
|
Bugs item #2669428, was opened at 2009-03-06 21:45 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by liedekef You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2669428&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: kswartz (kswartz) Assigned to: bishop (bishopb) Summary: Copying an existing survey does not copy conditions Initial Comment: I'm working with version 2.0.2 of phpESP, and noticed that if you copy an existing survey, it copies everything BUT the conditions. If this isn't fixed in the latest version, please consider it for the next update. (If this IS fixed in 2.1.2, it will probably speed up my upgrade. Only reason I haven't so far is because I made a lot of changes and fixed some bugs in 2.0.2, and wasn't sure how long it would take to copy the changes over.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Franky Van Liedekerke (liedekef) Date: 2009-04-10 09:13 Message: That would be great! Thanks, Bishop. Don't let it ruin the holidays though :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-04-10 01:58 Message: Franky, I'll try and get to them before Monday, 13-April-09. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Franky Van Liedekerke (liedekef) Date: 2009-04-09 23:33 Message: I'm assigning this to Bishop as well, but I'm really planning on releasing a new version after this fix (seems good enough reasons/bugfixes exist now). So Bishop, I don't know if you have the time to look at this and 2672129 any time soon? Franky ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2009-04-09 23:20 Message: Crap, another typo! Man, I wish I could edit these posts. One more time: INSERT INTO conditions (id,survey_id,q1_id,q2_id,cond,cond_value) SELECT NULL, 11, qnew1.id, qnew2.id, cond, cond_value FROM question qold1, question qold2, question qnew1, question qnew2, conditions c WHERE qold1.id=c.q1_id AND qold2.id=c.q2_id AND qold1.survey_id=$old_survey_id and qold2.survey_id=$old_survey_id AND qnew1.survey_id=$new_survey_id AND qnew1.position=qold1.position AND qnew1.deleted=qold1.deleted AND qnew2.survey_id=$new_survey_id AND qnew2.position=qold2.position AND qnew2.deleted=qold2.deleted; ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2009-04-09 23:18 Message: Sorry, the SQL in the last update was missing a line. It should read: INSERT INTO conditions (id,survey_id,q1_id,q2_id,cond,cond_value) SELECT NULL, $new_survey_id, qnew1.id, qnew2.id, cond, cond_value FROM question qold1, question qold2, question qnew1, question qnew2, conditions c WHERE qold1.id=c.q1_id AND qold2.id=c.q2_id AND qold1.survey_id=3 and qold2.survey_id=3 AND qnew1.survey_id=$new_survey_id AND qnew1.position=qold1.position AND qnew1.deleted=qold1.deleted AND qnew2.survey_id=$new_survey_id AND qnew2.position=qold2.position AND qnew2.deleted=qold2.deleted; Just a reminder, too, this enhancement REQUIRES the fix to 2672129 also (which makes copied surveys start with the same position as the original). This SQL cannot be manually applied to previously copied surveys unless the positions between the original and copy are re-aligned by hand, which may or may not be part of the fix to 2672129. (Probably not.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: kswartz (kswartz) Date: 2009-03-08 06:23 Message: (Sorry for the double post before.) Okay, I've looked at survey_aggregate.inc, and I think what I described previously is actually a bug. I've logged a separate bug for this. With that fix in place, this is the SQL I used to copy the conditions from the old survey to the new survey: INSERT INTO conditions (id,survey_id,q1_id,q2_id,cond,cond_value) SELECT NULL, $new_survey_id, qnew1.id, qnew2.id, cond, cond_value FROM question qold1, question qold2, question qnew1, question qnew2, conditions c WHERE qold1.id=c.q1_id AND qold2.id=c.q2_id AND qnew1.survey_id=$new_survey_id AND qnew1.position=qold1.position AND qnew1.deleted=qold1.deleted AND qnew2.survey_id=$new_survey_id AND qnew2.position=qold2.position AND qnew2.deleted=qold2.deleted; I'll work on producing a patch that incorporates this into survey_aggregate.inc Incidentally, I'm not sure why you chose to insert the questions one at a time while cycling through the results of a select. I think all the changes you made to the old data could have been made in SQL. I elected to do an INSERT INTO ... SELECT FROM ... instead, as you can see, as it's much faster. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: kswartz (kswartz) Date: 2009-03-08 05:24 Message: Okay, I've set up 2.1.2, and I may have a patch for this coming, but I've discovered a weird quirk that's affecting the SQL. The starting position for all my surveys (in the question table) is 0. However, when I copy a survey, the starting position is 1. Is that intended behavior? Can I always assume that the value of "position" for a question in a copied survey is always one greater than its counterpart in the original survey? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: kswartz (kswartz) Date: 2009-03-07 20:45 Message: Okay, I've set up 2.1.2, and I may have a patch for this coming, but I've discovered a weird quirk that's affecting the SQL. The starting position for all my surveys (in the question table) is 0. However, when I copy a survey, the starting position is 1. Is that intended behavior? Can I always assume that the value of "position" for a question in a copied survey is always one greater than its counterpart in the original survey? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: kswartz (kswartz) Date: 2009-03-07 01:01 Message: That's cool - it's not a feature I use very often, which is why it took so long to say anything. Next time I go to do this, I'll add a comment to the request with the SQL necessary to do the copy (which is the hard part). If I have time to actually fix the code, I'll gladly supply a patch. (And yes, I'll upgrade to 2.1.2 first. :) ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Franky Van Liedekerke (liedekef) Date: 2009-03-07 00:40 Message: Hi, sorry, but I don't think it is fixed in 2.1.2 (it was known to me though, and I'm pretty sure I documented it somewhere...) But feel free to make any contribution, be it patches, bug fixes, etc ... Franky ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2669428&group_id=8956 |
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2009-04-09 23:58:34
|
Bugs item #2669428, was opened at 2009-03-06 15:45 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bishopb You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2669428&group_id=8956 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: kswartz (kswartz) Assigned to: bishop (bishopb) Summary: Copying an existing survey does not copy conditions Initial Comment: I'm working with version 2.0.2 of phpESP, and noticed that if you copy an existing survey, it copies everything BUT the conditions. If this isn't fixed in the latest version, please consider it for the next update. (If this IS fixed in 2.1.2, it will probably speed up my upgrade. Only reason I haven't so far is because I made a lot of changes and fixed some bugs in 2.0.2, and wasn't sure how long it would take to copy the changes over.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: bishop (bishopb) Date: 2009-04-09 19:58 Message: Franky, I'll try and get to them before Monday, 13-April-09. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Franky Van Liedekerke (liedekef) Date: 2009-04-09 17:33 Message: I'm assigning this to Bishop as well, but I'm really planning on releasing a new version after this fix (seems good enough reasons/bugfixes exist now). So Bishop, I don't know if you have the time to look at this and 2672129 any time soon? Franky ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2009-04-09 17:20 Message: Crap, another typo! Man, I wish I could edit these posts. One more time: INSERT INTO conditions (id,survey_id,q1_id,q2_id,cond,cond_value) SELECT NULL, 11, qnew1.id, qnew2.id, cond, cond_value FROM question qold1, question qold2, question qnew1, question qnew2, conditions c WHERE qold1.id=c.q1_id AND qold2.id=c.q2_id AND qold1.survey_id=$old_survey_id and qold2.survey_id=$old_survey_id AND qnew1.survey_id=$new_survey_id AND qnew1.position=qold1.position AND qnew1.deleted=qold1.deleted AND qnew2.survey_id=$new_survey_id AND qnew2.position=qold2.position AND qnew2.deleted=qold2.deleted; ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Date: 2009-04-09 17:18 Message: Sorry, the SQL in the last update was missing a line. It should read: INSERT INTO conditions (id,survey_id,q1_id,q2_id,cond,cond_value) SELECT NULL, $new_survey_id, qnew1.id, qnew2.id, cond, cond_value FROM question qold1, question qold2, question qnew1, question qnew2, conditions c WHERE qold1.id=c.q1_id AND qold2.id=c.q2_id AND qold1.survey_id=3 and qold2.survey_id=3 AND qnew1.survey_id=$new_survey_id AND qnew1.position=qold1.position AND qnew1.deleted=qold1.deleted AND qnew2.survey_id=$new_survey_id AND qnew2.position=qold2.position AND qnew2.deleted=qold2.deleted; Just a reminder, too, this enhancement REQUIRES the fix to 2672129 also (which makes copied surveys start with the same position as the original). This SQL cannot be manually applied to previously copied surveys unless the positions between the original and copy are re-aligned by hand, which may or may not be part of the fix to 2672129. (Probably not.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: kswartz (kswartz) Date: 2009-03-08 00:23 Message: (Sorry for the double post before.) Okay, I've looked at survey_aggregate.inc, and I think what I described previously is actually a bug. I've logged a separate bug for this. With that fix in place, this is the SQL I used to copy the conditions from the old survey to the new survey: INSERT INTO conditions (id,survey_id,q1_id,q2_id,cond,cond_value) SELECT NULL, $new_survey_id, qnew1.id, qnew2.id, cond, cond_value FROM question qold1, question qold2, question qnew1, question qnew2, conditions c WHERE qold1.id=c.q1_id AND qold2.id=c.q2_id AND qnew1.survey_id=$new_survey_id AND qnew1.position=qold1.position AND qnew1.deleted=qold1.deleted AND qnew2.survey_id=$new_survey_id AND qnew2.position=qold2.position AND qnew2.deleted=qold2.deleted; I'll work on producing a patch that incorporates this into survey_aggregate.inc Incidentally, I'm not sure why you chose to insert the questions one at a time while cycling through the results of a select. I think all the changes you made to the old data could have been made in SQL. I elected to do an INSERT INTO ... SELECT FROM ... instead, as you can see, as it's much faster. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: kswartz (kswartz) Date: 2009-03-07 23:24 Message: Okay, I've set up 2.1.2, and I may have a patch for this coming, but I've discovered a weird quirk that's affecting the SQL. The starting position for all my surveys (in the question table) is 0. However, when I copy a survey, the starting position is 1. Is that intended behavior? Can I always assume that the value of "position" for a question in a copied survey is always one greater than its counterpart in the original survey? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: kswartz (kswartz) Date: 2009-03-07 14:45 Message: Okay, I've set up 2.1.2, and I may have a patch for this coming, but I've discovered a weird quirk that's affecting the SQL. The starting position for all my surveys (in the question table) is 0. However, when I copy a survey, the starting position is 1. Is that intended behavior? Can I always assume that the value of "position" for a question in a copied survey is always one greater than its counterpart in the original survey? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: kswartz (kswartz) Date: 2009-03-06 19:01 Message: That's cool - it's not a feature I use very often, which is why it took so long to say anything. Next time I go to do this, I'll add a comment to the request with the SQL necessary to do the copy (which is the hard part). If I have time to actually fix the code, I'll gladly supply a patch. (And yes, I'll upgrade to 2.1.2 first. :) ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Franky Van Liedekerke (liedekef) Date: 2009-03-06 18:40 Message: Hi, sorry, but I don't think it is fixed in 2.1.2 (it was known to me though, and I'm pretty sure I documented it somewhere...) But feel free to make any contribution, be it patches, bug fixes, etc ... Franky ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=108956&aid=2669428&group_id=8956 |
24 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
