Average grades in export by fidoriel · Pull Request #2366 · e-valuation/EvaP

fidoriel · 2025-01-13T17:46:50Z

closes #2001

niklasmohrin

Seems mostly correct, but I think we should make an effort to keep the structure of these methods clear

richardebeling · 2025-02-24T22:06:38Z

+
+        self.assertEqual(
+            float(workbook.sheets()[0].row_values(5)[1]),
+            (float(workbook.sheets()[0].row_values(5)[2]) + float(workbook.sheets()[0].row_values(5)[3])) / 2,


From a quick glance, it looks like the setup above creates the same exact average result for both evaluations and same count of answers inside of them. This doesn't test whether we compute the average-of-averages with correct weighting. Can we change them to have different answer counts?

Coincidentally, float-equality here made me wonder about correctness. It should work if the two values here are identical, the sum is then 2 * the original value, which is divisible by 2 to perfectly recreate the original value. However, I'd like the test to test a somewhat more sophisticated case. We'll likely need to use assertAlmostEqual then.

@fidoriel This currently compares a value the system produces against another value that the system produces, which leaves the chance that both might be wrong, but the test still passes.

For a bit more assertiveness, I would appreciate if we could change the assertion here to the exact string that should be shown in the output, optimally in the string-domain (without to-number conversion)

janno42

📊

niklasmohrin

The output looks correct, but I think we need to spend some more time on the code and testing, otherwise it will become hard to maintain the exporter

niklasmohrin · 2025-08-03T17:06:26Z

 class ExcelExporter(ABC):
    styles = {
        "default": xlwt.Style.default_style,
+        "missing_average": xlwt.Style.default_style,


both styles should be defined in the same place, so this should be moved to the other class

niklasmohrin · 2025-08-03T17:29:21Z

+    def filter_evaluations(  # noqa: PLR0912
+        semesters: Iterable[Semester] | None = None,
+        evaluation_states: Iterable[Evaluation.State] | None = None,
+        program_ids: Iterable[int] | None = None,
+        course_type_ids: Iterable[int] | None = None,
+        contributor: UserProfile | None = None,
+        include_not_enough_voters: bool = False,


I don't think that any of these should have defaults, there are two callers and both of them know exactly what they want to filter for.

I was wondering if we could get away without None by passing in Semester.objects.all() which results in something like WHERE "evaluation_course"."semester_id" IN (SELECT "evaluation_semester"."id" FROM "evaluation_semester") - I guess the database should be able to see that this check can be avoided @richardebeling ? But having None is also fine for now, I just think that the caller should be explicit about this

For contributor and include_not_enough_voters, I am not even sure if the current version is correct - wouldn't we want to use answers across all contributors for the average? Currently, we only use answers to the general questionnaire. And I guess include_not_enough_voters should be true for the average (@janno42 ?)

I'm confused. Aren't there average values for contributor questions in the current version of this PR? I thought so.

But yes, include_not_enough_voters should be True for the averages.

What I take from https://github.com/fidoriel/EvaP/blob/8a736d0713823104b69910edfbf23cfe49ab1ce4/evap/results/exporters.py#L415 is that even when contributor is not None we use the default of None for filter_evaluations

niklasmohrin · 2025-08-03T17:33:16Z

+        all_evaluations_with_results, _, _ = self.filter_evaluations(evaluation_states=[Evaluation.State.PUBLISHED])
+
        for sheet_counter, (program_ids, course_type_ids) in enumerate(selection_list, 1):


Just to be sure, we want to have the same average in all sheets and not the average for the programs and course types of that sheet for every sheet? @janno42

Now that you mention it... I think I wouldn't add this filter if we'd just have different course types, because their questions often differ. But for programs it might actually be important to have different averages. And then, when we're already at it, we can do the separation for both.
So yes, please calculate the averages for evaluations within the programs and course types of that sheet only.

niklasmohrin · 2025-08-03T17:43:34Z

+    def _get_average_grade_and_approval_ratio(
+        cls, questionnaire_id: int, question: Question, results: OrderedDict[int, list[QuestionResult]]


This uses questionnaire_id and results only once to do results[questionnaire_id], so we should just do that in the caller

niklasmohrin · 2025-08-03T17:46:15Z

+            if grade_result.question.id != question.id or not RatingResult.has_answers(grade_result):
+                continue
+
+            value_sum += grade_result.average * grade_result.count_sum


I think it would be fair to just ask the AnsweredRatingResult for the sum of grades instead of having it divided and then multiplied again; we can thus extract the summing out of its average method and make it available

niklasmohrin · 2025-08-03T19:30:53Z

        else:
            self.write_cell(questionnaire.public_name, "bold")

+        self.write_cell("", "border_left_right")


this can just be merged with the next line (where the comment is also not correct anymore)

niklasmohrin · 2025-08-03T19:34:38Z

        for question in self.filter_text_and_heading_questions(questionnaire.questions.all()):
            self.write_cell(question.text, "italic" if question.is_heading_question else "default")

+            average_grade, approval_ratio = self._get_average_of_average_grade_and_approval_ratio(


together with avg and average_approval_ratio below, it's not really clear what the difference between those four variables is; I think we can should use a clearer name

niklasmohrin · 2025-08-03T19:42:46Z

        self.assertEqual(sheet.row_values(5)[0], questions[1].text)
        self.assertEqual(sheet.row_values(6)[0], questions[2].text)
+
+    def test_total_average(self):


this does not cover several important details:

evaluations from previous semesters are included

evaluations from other programs and course types are included

only published evaluations are included
a. even if the unpublished evaluations are part of the export

which contributions are used

we are averaging over the averages of several results

are results with not enough voters used

So this test should be extended / more tests should be added. I think it is very easy to mess up some of these details in the future and when that happens, these tests should catch it

niklasmohrin · 2026-01-12T20:40:49Z

@fidoriel Do you want to continue working on this, or should someone else take over?

fidoriel · 2026-01-13T11:48:50Z

@fidoriel Do you want to continue working on this, or should someone else take over?

I am currently short on time. If I am blocking factor, hence this PR is quite old, feel free to take over or find someone who is willing to. If this is non-blocking, I am happy to finish at some point :)

Co-authored-by: Niklas Mohrin <dev@niklasmohrin.de>

janno42 · 2026-04-27T16:01:11Z

replaced by #2708

fidoriel force-pushed the average-grades-in-export branch 5 times, most recently from af9697b to 382680b Compare January 13, 2025 20:13

richardebeling requested changes Jan 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

fidoriel force-pushed the average-grades-in-export branch from dced350 to 6163186 Compare January 27, 2025 18:58

niklasmohrin reviewed Feb 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

richardebeling self-requested a review February 17, 2025 19:11

richardebeling reviewed Feb 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

janno42 requested changes Mar 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread evap/results/exporters.py Outdated

fidoriel commented Mar 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread evap/results/exporters.py Outdated

Kakadus reviewed Mar 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread evap/staff/views.py Outdated

fidoriel requested review from janno42 and richardebeling April 14, 2025 16:48

richardebeling previously approved these changes Apr 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread evap/results/tests/test_exporters.py Outdated

richardebeling requested review from Kakadus and niklasmohrin April 14, 2025 18:04

janno42 reviewed Apr 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread evap/results/exporters.py Outdated

Comment thread evap/results/tests/test_exporters.py Outdated

Kakadus reviewed May 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread evap/results/exporters.py Outdated

fidoriel dismissed richardebeling’s stale review via 86e0602 May 19, 2025 16:13

fidoriel force-pushed the average-grades-in-export branch from 84a538a to eb96a66 Compare May 19, 2025 16:17

janno42 previously approved these changes Jul 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

janno42 requested review from Kakadus and richardebeling July 14, 2025 16:24

niklasmohrin requested changes Aug 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

richardebeling removed their request for review August 4, 2025 15:27

janno42 force-pushed the main branch from 73e348c to 3577b6a Compare August 12, 2025 11:21

janno42 self-requested a review September 1, 2025 14:31

niklasmohrin marked this pull request as draft September 21, 2025 19:19

fidoriel dismissed janno42’s stale review via b3adec6 October 20, 2025 17:22

janno42 assigned Belissimo-T Mar 30, 2026

fidoriel and others added 20 commits April 13, 2026 17:13

remove private

8d1cc33

Add average results to exporter

65c39de

add tests for results exporter average

573e48e

adress comments

6de7b5d

revert to tuple

634f139

rename functions

2ec6729

add style

d5b8311

remove useless test

79df495

rephrase

adf57b2

fix test

10d9bc7

revert type

cdac41d

use hard coded in test

1fa7ef8

merge tests

09b764d

revert changes

ce5ee00

Update evap/results/exporters.py

b215b45

Co-authored-by: Niklas Mohrin <dev@niklasmohrin.de>

Update evap/results/exporters.py

8f702e6

Co-authored-by: Niklas Mohrin <dev@niklasmohrin.de>

Update evap/results/exporters.py

08af73d

Co-authored-by: Niklas Mohrin <dev@niklasmohrin.de>

Update evap/results/exporters.py

88a4f21

Co-authored-by: Niklas Mohrin <dev@niklasmohrin.de>

Update evap/results/exporters.py

7352bd9

Co-authored-by: Niklas Mohrin <dev@niklasmohrin.de>

make it work with recent changes

93a347c

fidoriel force-pushed the average-grades-in-export branch from a658751 to 93a347c Compare April 13, 2026 15:16

janno42 closed this Apr 27, 2026

		all_evaluations_with_results, _, _ = self.filter_evaluations(evaluation_states=[Evaluation.State.PUBLISHED])

		for sheet_counter, (program_ids, course_type_ids) in enumerate(selection_list, 1):

		def _get_average_grade_and_approval_ratio(
		cls, questionnaire_id: int, question: Question, results: OrderedDict[int, list[QuestionResult]]

Conversation

fidoriel commented Jan 13, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

niklasmohrin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

janno42 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

niklasmohrin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

niklasmohrin commented Jan 12, 2026

Uh oh!

fidoriel commented Jan 13, 2026

Uh oh!

janno42 commented Apr 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants