[Mpuls-commits] r5093 - in waska/trunk: . waskaweb/public/xml

[scm-commit@wald.intevation.org]

Author: bh
Date: 2011-06-08 18:10:25 +0200 (Wed, 08 Jun 2011)
New Revision: 5093

Modified:
   waska/trunk/ChangeLog
   waska/trunk/waskaweb/public/xml/eval_weitere.xml
Log:
* waskaweb/public/xml/eval_weitere.xml: Add comment about the
phase requirements for the "duration of phase C" evaluation which
at first glance might appear incorrect, but actually isn't in this
particular case. See mpuls/issue449 for the basic problem.


Modified: waska/trunk/ChangeLog
===================================================================
--- waska/trunk/ChangeLog	2011-06-08 15:22:12 UTC (rev 5092)
+++ waska/trunk/ChangeLog	2011-06-08 16:10:25 UTC (rev 5093)
@@ -1,5 +1,12 @@
 2011-06-08  Bernhard Herzog  <bh at intevation.de>
 
+	* waskaweb/public/xml/eval_weitere.xml: Add comment about the
+	phase requirements for the "duration of phase C" evaluation which
+	at first glance might appear incorrect, but actually isn't in this
+	particular case. See mpuls/issue449 for the basic problem.
+
+2011-06-08  Bernhard Herzog  <bh at intevation.de>
+
 	* waskaweb/public/xml/eval_tagebuch.xml: Fix typo in evaluation
 	description
 

Modified: waska/trunk/waskaweb/public/xml/eval_weitere.xml
===================================================================
--- waska/trunk/waskaweb/public/xml/eval_weitere.xml	2011-06-08 15:22:12 UTC (rev 5092)
+++ waska/trunk/waskaweb/public/xml/eval_weitere.xml	2011-06-08 16:10:25 UTC (rev 5093)
@@ -689,6 +689,19 @@
   <evaluation>
     <id>15</id>
     <requirement>
+      <!-- 
+           <phase>5</phase> is translated to SQL as "phase >= 5", which
+           would actuall be wrong, because that would also match phases
+           6 and 7 (Beratung), but those should not be considered for
+           this evaluation. We could use "5, 5" instead of "5" to so
+           that the SQL reads "phase in (5, 5)" so that it's
+           semantically correct, if ugly. However, the "5, 5" also shows
+           up in the report generated for the user, and luckily, all
+           cases considered for this evaluation must have a phase in
+           2,3,4,5 as defined in the global requirements in this file,
+           so simply listing 5 should still lead to correct evaluations.
+           The basic problem here is discussed in mpuls/issue449.
+      -->
       <phase>5</phase>
     </requirement>
     <name>Durchschnittliche Verweildauer in Phase C (Nachbetreuung)</name>