In order to correct students assignment and award marks for question-wise, the marking guide under advanced grading methods are very useful.
I have 25 questions. As this method does not allow any fields to be blank I have to manually mark zero in all fields every time even if I m correcting only few questions at a given time. Is there anyway I can tweak so that default mark is zero or empty?
Related
I am reading Microservices Patterns by Chris. In his book, he gave some example, which I could not able to understand section 5.2.1. The problem with fuzzy boundaries
Here is the link to read online. Can you someone please look into section 5.2.1 and help me understand what exactly the issue with fuzzy boundaries?
I didn't get clearly especially below statement:
In this scenario, Sam reduces the order total by $X and Mary reduces it by $Y. As a result, the Order is no longer valid, even though the application verified that the order still satisfied the order minimum after each consumer’s update
In above statement, can someone please explain me, why Order is no longer valid?
In above statement, can someone please explain me, why Order is no longer valid?
The business problem that Chris Richardson is using in this example assumes that (a) the system should ensure that orders are always valid, and (b) that valid orders exceed some minimum amount.
Minimum amount is determined by a sum of the order_items associated with a specific order.
The "fuzzy boundary" issue comes about because the code in question allows Sam and Mary to manipulate order_items directly; in other words, writing changes to order items does not lock the other items of the order.
If Sam and Mary were forced to acquire a lock on the entire order before validating their changes, then you wouldn't have a problem; the second person would see the changes made by the first.
Alternatively, locking at the level of the order_item would be fine if you weren't trying to ensure that the set of order items satisfy some property. Take away the constraint on the total order cost, and Sam and Mary only need to get locks on their specific item.
Is there any custom apex rule already present if the number of lines exceeds a certain parameter in PMD?
there are multiple apex rules already, see: https://pmd.github.io/latest/pmd_rules_apex.html . The ones you look for are probably in the category design. You could use ExcessiveClassLength which simply counts the lines. There is also NcssTypeCount, which only counts statements and e.g. ignores comments.
Cross-posting https://sourceforge.net/p/pmd/discussion/188194/thread/c38c328d36/?limit=25
I have started using drools a week ago.
I need to calculate average of a metric over a window-duration, say 4s. Below code-snippet of Drools will do this job.
... over window:time(4s) ...
However, I want to take this value as input to a rule with the value taken from control-panel UI where someone, say the customer, can specify the window duration.
I tried many options, including the one below, but that doesn't compile.
... over window:time($SlidingWindowDuration)
Googled for hours, but there is little documentation available on this subject.
Any clues in this regard would be of great help to me.
The length of a sliding window:time cannot be set dynamically. (I think this is so because dynamic lengths would make it impossible to infer an expiration offset for the automatic removal of obsolete events.)
Note that if this length can be set by the user before the engine is started and remains constant afterwards, you can insert the duration into the rule text, compile on the fly (only the rules that need last-minute editing) and execute.
To be absolutely dynamic, you'll have to implement the "window" mechanism explicitly. Make the timestamp an attribute of the event and set it explicitly: then you can base reasoning on timestamp differences, retract old events explicitly and compute the average over all that's left using a simple accumulate CE.
I'm currently struggling at a complex URL handling concept question. The application have a product property database table/collection with all the different product types (i.e. categories, colors, manufacturers, materials, etc.).
{_id:1,alias:"mercedes-benz",type:"brand"},
{_id:2,alias:"suv-cars",type:"category"},
{_id:3,alias:"cars",type:"category"},
{_id:4,alias:"toyota",type:"manufacturer"},
{_id:5,alias:"red",type:"color"},
{_id:6,alias:"yellow",type:"color"},
{_id:7,alias:"bmw",type:"manufacturer"},
{_id:8,alias:"leather",type:"material"}
...
Now the mission is to handle URL requests in the style below in every(!) possible order to retrieve the included product properties. The only allowed character is the dash (settled SEO requirement, some properties also can include dashes by themselve - i think also an important point - i.e. the category "suv-cars" or the manufacturer "mercedes-benz"):
http:\\www.example.com\{category}-{color}-{manufacturer}-{material}
http:\\www.example.com\{color}-{manufacturer}
http:\\www.example.com\{color}-{category}-{material}-{manufacturer}
http:\\www.example.com\{category}-{color}-nonexistingproperty-{manufacturer}
http:\\www.example.com\{color}-{category}-{manufacturer}
http:\\www.example.com\{manufacturer}
http:\\www.example.com\{manufacturer}-{category}-{color}-{material}
http:\\www.example.com\{category}
http:\\www.example.com\{manufacturer}-nonexistingproperty-{category}-{color}-{material}
http:\\www.example.com\{color}-crap-{manufacturer}
...
...so: every order of the properties should be allowed! The result have to be the information about the used properties per URL-Request (BTW yes, the duplicate content will be fixed by redirects and a predefined schema). The "nonexistingproperties"/"crap" are possible and just should be ignored.
UPDATE:
Idea 1: One way i'm thinking about the question is to split the query string by dashes and analyze them value by value, the problem: At the two or three or more word combinations at some properties there are too many different combinations and variations so a loooot of queries which kills this idea i think..
Idea 2: The other way is to build a (in my opinion) too large Alias/URL-Table with all of the different combinations, but i think that's just an ugly workaround. There are about 15.000 of different properties so the count of the aliases in the different sort orders is killing this idea.
Idea 3: It's your turn! Thanks for your mind and your time.
While your question is a bit broad, below are some ideas. There isn't a single awesome answer unless you find a free or commercial engine for this that works exactly the way you want.
The way I thought about your problem was to consider the URL as a list of keywords.
use Lucene as a keyword/tag system. It's good at the types of searches you suggest you want, including phrases, stems, etc.
store and index the data in DB of choice, but pull the keywords into memory and build a bit index of all keywords vs items. Iterate through the keyword table producing weighted results. If order of keywords matters, you'll also need make a pass through the result set to weight based on word order. These types of searches always need to cap their result set quickly in order to return results quickly.
cache the results like crazy from working matches, and give precedence to results that users seem to click on the most for a given URL.
attack the database by using tag indexes in MongoDB. You'd still need to merge and weight results. Very intensive and not likely a good use of DB resources.
read some of the academic papers on keyword searches. It's a popular topic.
build a table of words that have dashes in them, and normalize/convert those before running your queries
always check for full exact matches first
The only way this may work, if you restrict all property values to be unique. So, you make a set of categories+colors+manufacturers, etc. All values have to be unique. This will allow you to find to what property the value belongs.
The data structure for this should be fairly simple:
{_id:ValueOfTheProperty, Property:TypeOfProperty}
Here are some possible samples:
{ _id: Red, Property: Color }
{ _id: Green, Property: Color }
{ _id: Boots, Property: Category }
{ _id: Shoes, Property: Category }
...
This way, the order does not matter, and you are able to convert them in a single pass to a map:
{ Color: Red, Category: Boots }
Though, I predict some problems with ambigous names here.
Today I've been presented with a fun challenge and I want your input on how you would deal with this situation.
So the problem is the following (I've converted it to demo data as the real problem wouldn't make much sense without knowing the company dictionary by heart).
We have a decision table that has a minimum of 16 conditions. Because it is an impossible feat to manage all of them (2^16 possibilities) we've decided to only list the exceptions. Like this:
As an example I've only added 10 conditions but in reality there are (for now) 16. The basic idea is that we have one baseline (the default) which is valid for everyone and all the exceptions to this default.
Example:
You have a foreigner who is also a pirate.
If you go through all the exceptions one by one, and condition by condition you remove the exceptions that have at least one condition that fails. In the end you'll end up with the following two exceptions that are valid for our case. The match is on the IsPirate and the IsForeigner condition. But as you can see there are 2 results here, well 3 actually if you count the default.
Our solution
Now what we came up with on how to solve this is that in the GUI where you are adding these exceptions, there should run an algorithm which checks for such cases and force you to define the exception more specifically. This is only still a theory and hasn't been tested out but we think it could work this way.
My Question
I'm looking for alternative solutions that make the rules manageable and prevent the problem I've shown in the example.
Your problem seem to be resolution of conflicting rules. When multiple rules match your input, (your foreigner and pirate) and they end up recommending different things (your cangetjob and cangetevicted), you need a strategy for resolution of this conflict.
What you mentioned is one way of resolution -- which is to remove the conflict in the first place. However, this may not always be possible, and not always desirable because when a user adds a new rule that conflicts with a set of old rules (which he/she did not write), the user may not know how to revise it to remove the conflict.
Another possible resolution method is prioritization. Mark a priority on each rule (based on things like the user's own authority etc.), sort the matching rules according to priority, and apply in ascending sequence of priority. This usually works and is much simpler to manage (e.g. everybody knows that the top boss's rules are final!)
Prioritization may also be used to mark a certain rule as "global override". In your example, you may want to make "IsPirate" as an override rule -- which means that it overrides settings for normal people. In other words, once you're a pirate, you're treated differently. This make it very easy to design a system in which you have a bunch of normal business rules governing 90% of the cases, then a set of "exceptions" that are treated differently, automatically overriding certain things. In this case, you should also consider making "?" available in the output columns as well.
One other possible resolution method is to include attributes in each of your conditions. For example, certain conditions must have no "zeros" in order to pass (? doesn't matter). Some conditions must have at least one "one" in order to pass. In other words, mark each condition as either "AND", "OR", or "XOR". Some popular file-system security uses this model. For example, CanGetJob may be AND (you want to be stringent on rights-to-work). CanBeEvicted may be OR -- you may want to evict even a foreigner if he is also a pirate.
An enhancement on the AND/OR method is to provide a threshold that the total result must exceed before passing that condition. For example, putting CanGetJob at a threshold of 2 then it must get at least two 1's in order to return 1. This is sometimes useful on conditions that are not clearly black-and-white.
You can mix resolution methods: e.g. first prioritize, then use AND/OR to resolve rules with similar priorities.
The possibilities are limitless and really depends on what your actual needs are.
To me this problem reminds business rules engine where there is no known algorithm to define outputs from inputs (e.g. using boolean logic) but the user (typically some sort of administrator) has to define all or some the logic itself.
This might sound a bit of an overkill but OTOH this provides virtually limit-less extension capabilities: you don't have to code any new business logic, just define a new rule set.
As I understand your problem, you are looking for a nice way to visualise the editing for these rules. But this all depends on your programming language and the tool you select for this. Java, for example, has JBoss Drools. Quoting their page:
Drools Guvnor provides a (logically
centralized) repository to store you
business knowledge, and a web-based
environment that allows business users
to view and (within certain
constraints) possibly update the
business logic directly.
You could possibly use this generic tool or write your own.
Everything depends on what your actual rules will look like. Rules like 'IF has an even number of these properties THEN' would be painful to represent in this format, whereas rules like 'IF pirate and not geek THEN' are easy.
You can 'avoid the ambiguity' by stating that you'll always be taking the first actual match, in other words your rules have a priority. You'd then want to flag rules which have no effect because they are 'shadowed' by rules higher up. They're not hard to find, so it's something your program should do.
Your interface could also indicate groups of rules where rules within the group can be in any order without changing the outcomes. This will add clarity to what the rules are really saying.
If some of your outputs are relatively independent of the others, you will also get a more compact and much clearer table by allowing question marks in the output. In that design the scan for first matching rule is done once for each output. Consider for example if 'HasChildren' is the only factor relevant to 'Can Be Evicted'. With question marks in the outputs (= no effect) you could be halving the number of exception rules.
My background for this is circuit logic design, not business logic. What you're designing is similar to, but not the same as, a PLA. As long as your actual rules are close to sum of products then it can work well. If your rules aren't, for example the 'even number of these properties' rule, then the grid like presentation will break down in a combinatorial explosion of cases. Your best hope if your rules are arbitrary is to get a clearer more compact presentation with either equations or with diagrams like a circuit diagram. To be avoided, if you can.
If you are looking for a Decision Engine with a GUI, than you can try this one: http://gandalf.nebo15.com/
We just released it, it's open source and production ready.
You probably need some kind of inference engine. Think about doing it in prolog.