Workshop module stores personal data in its tables, via user
preference and via core_files and core_plagiarism subsystems.
When exporting the data, we export not only data created by users
themselves (such as their submissions and provided peer-assessments) but
also all relevant data that can (or must) be used to interpret created
content and evaluate the user's performance and skills.
On the other hand, when deleting data at user's request, we delete only
those data that do not affect other users' performance evaluation. The
reasoning is that one's right for privacy does not overweight someone
else's right for fair assessment. For that reason, we can't fully delete
whole provided peer-assessments, for example. Because they are used in
cross-comparison and grading evaluation of all other peers who assessed
the same submission. So instead, we replace provided texts but still
keep the original record.
Workshop defines the interface for its grading strategy subplugins to
allow them attach personal data under their control to the exported
structures.
Now that the validation is provided directly by the filemanager, we do
not need to do the same here.
Note that existing Behat tests are left untouched to make sure there is
no regression.
The element copes well with the legacy syntax - just extensions, no
dots. So the upgrade step is not actually necessary here. The element
has in-built validation so there is no need to validate it explicitly
here again.
The icon itself has been found insufficient, teachers did not realize it
was used to switch the phase. Its semantics is even less intuitive in
Boost when we do not show it on course outline any more.
So this patch starts to display the information that has been present
for assistive technologies only. As a side effect, I spotted there was a
bug that caused the id attribute "mod_workshop-userplancurrenttasks"
was used for all titles (not only the current one) so it did not
really serve the purpose well.
The screen reader had to read through all the phases tasks. This patch
adds an accessibility link to the list of the current phase tasks so the
user can skip directly to them.
Change userplan HTML structure from table to unordered definition list
<dl> <dt> and <dd>. Add accessibility string for task-todo, task-done,
task-fail, task-info to be read by screen reader
* Use a single capability 'mod/workshop:exportsubmissions' to control
who is able to export a submission and all associated visible
peer-assessments.
* The export capability is by default granted to teachers and managers
as well.
* Simplify the integration of the export button into the submission
page. There is now a single place where the export button appears - at
the buttom of the submission page.
* Clean up the new strings introduced for this feature.
* Rewrite the portfolio caller class so that it better mimics the
behaviour of the submission.php page. It must not be possible to get
access to contents otherwise not available via the UI.
* Fix phpunit tests.
* Improve behat tests so that they can run in headless browser
(performance).
During the development, some problems were detected in the underlying
portfolio API, especially with LEAP2A format and files collisions
handling. These may be eventually fixed in the future, should there be a
demand for it.
In a Workshop activity, comment fields on Assessment forms do not properly link to the corresponding Aspect.
So screen reader users may find it difficult to complete the Assessment forms.
There should be a hidden label text for each comment field.
This is basically a clean up and what I think improved version of the
original Mahmoud's patch.
The actual checking for allowed file extensions has been re-implemented
and is now covered by unit tests. The list of allowed extensions is now
also assed to the filemanager element's accepted_types option to prevent
picking other files (we still need the in-place validation though). The
form validation is simplified a bit. The custom validation of file size
introduced in the previous patch has been removed as not related to this
issue (also I believe it should not be done at this level).
It was reported at the Open University that there have been some
problems with the formats of files submitted by students. Not all
students completed their outlines as a Word .doc (despite this being the
format of the template provided). Some formats (e.g. .pages) couldn’t be
translated by some of the reviewing students. Therefore, they were
unable to provide a review and the submitting students not receiving any
comments.
This patch allows the teacher to define list of allowed file types that
can be attached to submitted work and/or overall feedback in the
workshop.
Some search areas have been introduced as part of the initial search API
and search engine API implementation.
- Forum posts
- Glossary enties
- All moodle activities
I noticed we do not need to list the names of potentially affected
reviewers. If the user (teacher) has the capability to see other
assessments (which they do in 99%), the list of assessments is displayed
at the confirmation page anyway. If for some reason they do not have the
capability, we should not list the names.
The second fix is that the action buttons (such as Delete or Edit) are
not displayed on the removal confirmation page.
And finally, as the output->confirm() wraps the message with implicit
<p>, it is not valid to pass HTML with any block elements. So instead of
concatenating the two messages, we simply define a new string for this
situation.
A new capability is introduced to control this, granted to teacher/admin
roles by default: mod/workshop:deletesubmissions. Additionally, students
can delete their own submissions if they are currently able to edit them.
This patch adds a new report to be displayed during the submission
phase. The report displays all participants who are supposed to submit
their work into the workshop and the status of their submission.
This is built upon original work by Michael Hughes. We now have separate
settings for deleting workshop submissions, assessments and for resetting the
workshop phase.
Example submissions settings moved into a dedicated section.
Self-assessment setting moved to the assessment section. There is no
need for the dedicated Workshop features section any more. All Workshop
feedback settings moved into a dedicated section.
Reorganised grading settings - the grading strategy put into the top
place as it is the essential setting. All other three settings are
related to calculating actual grades.
No advanced setting fields in the Workshop form. Mixing collapsible
sections with advanced fields (that are not even marked as "advanced"
any more) does not work well.
AMOS BEGIN
CPY [feedback,mod_assign],[feedbacksettings,mod_workshop]
AMOS END
The assessment form can be displayed as editable or read-only (frozen).
Neither the editor element nor the filemanager element support
displaying frozen content themselves so we need to pre-format and inject
static texts.
The list of attachments should be ideally generated by the renderer and
probably improved a bit - just quick and dirty solution must be enough
for now though (2.5 coding freeze is just behind the corner...).
AMOS BEGIN
CPY [submissionattachment,mod_workshop],[feedbackauthorattachment,mod_workshop]
AMOS END
Helen Foster