On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 23:13 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > > 2. You will not be asked both reversed and unreversed versions of a > > statement. > > great. > > hrm, checking for bugs in this is going to be hard to do. will require > lots of test trials and lots of anality. guess what? it won't get > thoroughly tested!!! (-: > > if there is a bug in something complex like this hopefully we will find > it in the data. yes, i suppose the best way to find bugs like this > is to make queries to our data. e.g. make a query like this "give me > all subjects and all itmes such that that subject has seen the reversed > and unreversed version of that item." if we get any hits for a query > like that we know there is a bug.
In my opinion, the way to verify that we are asking an appropriate set
of questions is to study the SQL query:
SELECT c_stat.construal_id
FROM c_stat NATURAL JOIN construal
where
c_stat_group = ? and
expert_id = ? AND
construal_parent not in
(SELECT rc.construal_parent FROM rating AS r
JOIN construal rc ON (r.construal_expert_id = rc.expert_id and
r.construal_id = rc.construal_id)
WHERE r.rating_expert_id = ?)
I tested it, seems to work. Hence, don't waste time worrying about
this.
--
If you are an American then support http://fairtax.org
(Permanently replace 50,000+ pages of tax law with about 200 pages.)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Heartlogic-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/heartlogic-dev
