[OH-Dev] Tar exploration

[Tarashish Mishra]

Hi Sean!

Updated codereview at https://codereview.appspot.com/13884044 . Have a look.

Thanks,
Sunu






On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 8:16 AM, S.Z.W. Lip <s.z.w.lip at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Sunu,
>
> Great, I will look at the code review with that in mind later tonight.
> Thanks for clarifying!
>
> For (1), try changing your script src's from angularjs-1.0.7 to
> angularjs-1.2.0-rc.2 (as in the other widgets), and if that doesn't solve
> the problem, see if you can follow the style of the other modals we have in
> the rest of the codebase? I'm not sure exactly what the issue is, but I do
> know that bootstrap and angular occasionally interact in weird ways. I'll
> probably make more comments in the code review when I get to it.
>
> For (2), understood. We can't get to this immediately, but we are looking
> into making the state editor even more intuitive and converting the
> feedback boxes into rich text editors with more functionality (which will
> include adding links). This will take a little while to do properly, and I
> think it will only happen at least a month from now. If this is more urgent
> than that, we will probably need to ask for some implementation help. (It
> may look like a simple feature on the surface, but there are security
> considerations that need to be taken account when allowing users to insert
> arbitrary html on a page that can be viewed subsequently by other users.
> I'm happy to explain in more detail if you like.)
>
> Regarding the scrolling issue, I found a similar issue today and fixed it
> in this commit<http://code.google.com/p/oppia/source/detail?r=47979f5dfec6a43d9e668d11a6977b1bc1516d28>.
> Could you please do a pull of the latest version and confirm this?
>
> Everything else sounds good. One question: can you tell me more about how
> exactly you plan to use import/export in the future? And, more generally,
> what is your vision for the collaborative environment around the openhatch
> missions? I've already implemented most of the first part (a script that
> interprets <oppia ...> tags in a webpage) but am interested in
> understanding your thinking about the second.
>
> Also, I do remember signing up at that link for the mailing list, but
> (like you) I never got emails from it!
>
> - Sean
>
>
> On 20 September 2013 10:06, Tarashish Mishra <sunu0000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Sean,
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:18 PM, S.Z.W. Lip <s.z.w.lip at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sunu!
>>>
>>> Wow! I am *very* impressed. I played through the whole thing and I
>>> really liked it when I got detailed feedback when I uploaded
>>> ghello-0.4.tar.gz by mistake. I also like the way you have done hints.
>>> Great job!
>>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>>
>>> I'd be happy to take a look at the code review. One question: is the
>>> intention here that you will be submitting these changes to the Oppia
>>> mainline, or are these meant only for the openhatch code base? Either way,
>>> I'm totally happy to look at them, I just wanted to understand the context
>>> in which I should be reviewing them.
>>>
>>
>> The changes  can live on Oppia mainline if you are okay with it.
>>
>>
>>> Regarding your questions:
>>>
>>> 1. That's strange, sorry to hear that. I checked, and the tar
>>> exploration you sent me last time doesn't break even after the latest
>>> commit, so it's probably an issue with subsequent changes. Do you have any
>>> debug information? For instance, is the request coming to the server in the
>>> first place? Or, is the server responding to the client, but the client is,
>>> for some reason, failing to show the feedback or any subsequent prompt? Are
>>> there any errors in the chrome console?
>>>
>>
>> No, I don't get any errors in the terminal or the chrome console. And I
>> have done some inspection and the server is sending out the right feedback.
>> The problem is on the client side. Note that the precious version of tar
>> exploration didn't have the tarfilereadinput widget.
>>
>>>
>>> 2. We can't do this yet (our support for customizations in feedback is a
>>> bit primitive). I just added it to our issue tracker (in the future, please
>>> feel free to add stuff here too!). Do you need this urgently?
>>>
>>
>> It's not the top priority now, but somewhat urgent I'll say.
>>
>>>
>>> The milestones list looks good to me. I have one small question: what
>>> does "the scroll-to issue" mean? That might be something that is better to
>>> fix upstream.
>>>
>>
>> During the exploration the window scrolls automatically. The scrolling is
>> somewhat inconsistent at some cases and you have to adjust the scrollbar
>> manually.
>>
>>
>>
>>> It also strikes me that this is one symptom of a more general issue,
>>> which is that we need to manage two separate codebases and the syncing
>>> between them. So I want to raise a few points, and invite your thoughts on
>>> them:
>>>
>>>    - What sorts of extensions are you planning to make to your version
>>>    of the oppia codebase? I think it's important for there to be a way for you
>>>    to 'git pull' without having to do lots of merges, so figuring out an
>>>    architecture which enables you to customize things 'safely' would be a good
>>>    idea. In particular, I would strongly advise not editing core oppia files
>>>    if you can help it, but use the extensibility frameworks for rules/widgets
>>>    that we've provided. Also, if we have some idea of what customizations
>>>    you're doing, we can keep them in mind when developing, and possibly
>>>    implement extensible frameworks for them if needed.
>>>    - Another reason it would be good to chat about custom modifications
>>>    that you might want to make is that, if they are sufficiently general, we
>>>    might want to do them on the oppia codebase rather than the openhatch fork
>>>    of oppia. This means you will have less custom code to maintain, and less
>>>    chance of breakages (since you would essentially have more people
>>>    monitoring the build and in a sense it becomes our problem). 'Sufficiently
>>>    general' has quite broad scope here -- e.g. we want to work on improving
>>>    our reader and gallery UIs, and I'd also be perfectly happy to take things
>>>    like the TarFile object and rules in, if you're willing.
>>>    - Another facet of this is that I worry we might break you when
>>>    doing pushes (see point 1 above). In general, we ensure that every push we
>>>    do results in every single oppia test passing. This, however, means that
>>>    new code needs to be accompanied by tests, otherwise the fact that the
>>>    tests are passing doesn't really give us much security. We still need to
>>>    add more tests to the core Oppia frontend, but I am also thinking here of
>>>    things like the tar widget -- which we can only really guarantee not to
>>>    break if there are tests for it. That's more or less an (important) FYI,
>>>    and I guess the main question here is: do you have a strategy for when you
>>>    update your repo from ours?
>>>
>>> I agree. We should try to have as much common code as possible.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All these boil down to minimizing codebase skew, and so I have a
>>> suggestion: what do you think about making a comprehensive list of the
>>> changes you want to make to your fork of the codebase, and then I go down
>>> that list and suggest which ones oppia would be happy to accept?
>>>
>> Yes, great idea. We'll add stuff we want to the issues list and tag them
>> suitable, so that you can go through them easily.
>>
>>
>>>  Then, for the ones I say we can't or probably shouldn't accept (e.g.
>>> pinging a specific openhatch server to get a u/n and p/w), I can at least
>>> try to suggest to you the best way to implement them using our existing
>>> extensibility frameworks, or we might try to build new frameworks (like we
>>> did for parameters) if we feel that the need is a general one. The benefit
>>> here is that it minimizes codebase skew, makes it easier for you to
>>> maintain your fork, and lets me know about what you're doing; the
>>> disadvantage is that it might take more time, you might need to wait for me
>>> to act on that list (which I will try to do quickly, but if there are
>>> back-and-forth cycles needed to try and clarify what exactly you are doing,
>>> there will be natural delays), and significant changes to oppia will need
>>> to pass code review (and, soon, always include tests -- we really want the
>>> codebase to be stable). All this is just a suggestion, and accepting it is
>>> totally up to you and Asheesh!
>>>
>>
>> Sounds great!
>>
>>>  I also wanted to give you a couple of updates on what we're thinking
>>> of doing because I think they might be of direct interest:
>>>
>>>    - We are looking into making oppia explorations really portable and
>>>    playable anywhere, so that they can be accessed by just including an <oppia
>>>    .../> tag in a page, and having a <script src="oppia-player.js"></script>
>>>    at the bottom of the file, so that the process is as simple as including
>>>    jquery. We're also looking into having oppia explorations be loadable
>>>    directly from yaml/json files (that may be stored in github repos), but
>>>    this is further down the road. Just thought I'd mention it in case it is of
>>>    interest.
>>>
>>> This is really interesting, both the player and exploration
>> import/export from files. This (import/export) is something we will use in
>> the future.
>>
>>>
>>>    - We are also looking at adding tags to the gallery view and a
>>>    search feature, since categories can be a little restrictive.
>>>
>>> Tags are useful too. Earlier Aheesh and I were talking about how we
>> can't have a single exploration in multiple categories. Tags solve that
>> problem.
>>
>>
>>> Let me know if you have any feedback on these -- in fact, I feel like it
>>> would be good to get feedback in general about the stuff you're planning to
>>> do, so that we can take your needs into account when planning. We're having
>>> a team meeting soon to decide on our direction and main objectives for the
>>> next three months, and I can give you more info on that after it happens --
>>> but, briefly: our core goal is for anyone to be able to learn anything they
>>> want to effectively and enjoyably, so we're looking at a vision where you
>>> can play these explorations anywhere on any webpage and you can build giant
>>> epic compelling stories out of them, or make a wikipedia of explorations,
>>> or something, that makes the entire learning experience really
>>> reader-driven and fun. And I'd be delighted to hear any feedback you have
>>> on this, or other things.
>>>
>>> Also: *Asheesh*, could you please add me to openhatch-devel? I thought
>>> I signed up a while back but I have not been getting any emails.
>>>
>>>
>> The mailing list is at http://lists.openhatch.org/mailman/listinfo/devel.
>> But yeah, I just checked my inbox and I think I am not getting emails from
>> the list either.
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -- Sunu
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openhatch.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130925/6d0819a2/attachment.html>