updated the description of AdvancementCondition[percent] #13
Conversation
…o regulation 9p1 and to clarify the text.
|
Hey @p2peditor! I'm not sure if WCIF spec itself needs to be restricted to mirror regulations. The issue with doing so is that:
If anyone else has a strong opinion, shoot :) |
|
I agree with Jonatan in principle. This is about data, not about Regulations. The data allows any percentage to proceed, no matter if the regulations currently allow that percentage or not. The value can and should be defined as "0 to 1" and then other tools can handle their own exceptions if an "illegal" value (as per the Regulations) is used. |
|
That makes sense. How about simply amending the description along the
philosophy of the Robustness Principle
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle) a.k.a. Postel's
Law, to suggest that tool-makers be conservative in what they do (i.e.
follow the regs) but be liberal in what they accept (i.e. be ready for
values greater than 75%.
If you're all down with that, I'll update and submit a new pull request.
On 2023-03-13 12:14, Gregor Billing wrote:
I agree with Jonatan in principle. This is about data, not about Regulations. The data allows any percentage to proceed, no matter if the regulations _currently_ allow that percentage or not. The value can and should be defined as "0 to 1" and then other tools can handle their own exceptions if an "illegal" value (as per the Regulations) is used.
--
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub [1], or unsubscribe [2].
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
Sounds absolutely cool and well-considered, but please note that the general state of things in the WCA Software stack is currently not at the stage yet where we can regularly consider stuff like Software Development Principles and such. |
|
Sounds good, though perhaps instead of noting that in this specific place, we can have a more general note at the top/bottom that clarifies that WCIF focuses on the data format, while it is up to the consumer to ensure validity and expected behaviour to match the current regulations. |
|
That's an even better idea. I am comp organizing during my evenings this
week and through the weekend, but I will work on that next week.
On 2023-03-14 13:41, Jonatan Kłosko wrote:
Sounds good, though perhaps instead of noting that in this specific place, we can have a more general note at the top/bottom that clarifies that WCIF focuses on the data format, while it is up to the consumer to ensure validity and expected behaviour to match the current regulations.
--
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub [1], or unsubscribe [2].
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
I noticed that the allowed range for the "percent" subkey of AdvancementCondition (an Integer between 0 and 100 inclusive) was inconsistent with regulation 9p1, "At least 25% of competitors must be eliminated between consecutive rounds of the same event." The range should be 0 to 75, inclusive.
This pull request implements that and makes other clarifying edits to the description of the "percent" subkey.
Background: This is Jason Black, 2019BLAC02. I have been working with Cailyn Hoover to get more involved with tools for comp organizers, and she suggested a good place to start would be by improving the WCIF docs. This pull request is just to say hello and dip my toe in those waters before engaging in any substantive edits.