Re: [Heartlogic-dev] rumination status

[Joshua N Pritikin]

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