Broadcast clarification responses #225
Conversation
Adds a comment to the Contest API about keeping referential integrity when the jury responds to a private message with a broadcast. (Corresponding CDS issue #1224 opened in ICPC tools repo) Adds a comment to the CCS requirement indicating best practice is to use internet-style responses. Fixes icpc#221.
Co-authored-by: Jaap Eldering <[email protected]>
Contest_API.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| The recipients of a clarification are the union of `to_team_ids` and `to_group_ids`. A clarification is sent to all teams if `from_team_id`, `to_team_ids` and `to_group_ids` are null. Note that if `from_team_id` is not `null`, then both `to_team_ids` and `to_group_ids` must be `null`. That is, teams cannot send messages to other teams or groups. | ||
|
|
||
| Clarifications between a team and the jury are typically private. If the jury sends a response to others than just the original team, then the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This sentence sounds awkward. Maybe something like: If the jury replies to the clarification and chooses to include additional recipients (teams?) or everyone, then the 'reply_to_id' should be removed...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reworded and reordered the sentence, please take another look.
| - Compose an answer to the clar and send it, along with the text of the original | ||
| clarification request, to the team. | ||
| clarification request, to the team. The best practice is to include the | ||
| original clarification text as an internet-style response, which allows the judge |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we all know what "internet-style" means here, but is it really clear? I don't know of this ever being called this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, maybe we should specifically say what we mean here? I.e. something like "add the original question in its entirety, prepending every line by > ". Normally I would worry about over-specifying, but this is just a "the best practice is", so I think it would be fine, and it would certainly be more clear than "internet-style".
What do y'all think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fair enough, reworded giving this explanation. Left a reference to 'internet style quoting' in because that seems to be the common name for it and gives something to google if the reader doesn't fully understand it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, now I feel a bit dumb, I never actually searched for "internet style quoting". It seems to indeed mean exactly what you used it for, I had just never heard it I guess. My mistake.
Response to feedback: - reworded sentence on removing reply_to_id to be less awkward. - explained internet-style quoting.
5 participants
Adds a comment to the Contest API about keeping referential integrity when the jury responds to a private message with a broadcast. (Corresponding CDS issue #1224 opened in ICPC tools repo)
Adds a comment to the CCS requirement indicating best practice is to use internet-style responses.
Fixes #221.