Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

LExSIS Documentation #24

Open
alfredats opened this issue Jun 24, 2021 · 3 comments
Open

LExSIS Documentation #24

alfredats opened this issue Jun 24, 2021 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@alfredats
Copy link
Contributor

Tracker for updating the following:

  1. adding screenshots to illustrate how using the ask/any/another headers modify the UI
  2. adding more examples (perhaps having an initial example, broken down into pieces in each section would help better?)
@alfredats alfredats self-assigned this Jun 24, 2021
@alfredats
Copy link
Contributor Author

Based on previous comments by Avishkar, I've decided to use the rock-paper-scissors scenario as an example for the documentation. The aim here is to use the example to showcase the differences in how the UI would behave based on changes to certain headers.

A draft RPS lexsis file & sCASP file have been written, but it seems like the interview generator in l4-docassemble doesn't like whatever has been written.

At this point I will be focused on troubleshooting the sCASP file, because it is the format that is less familiar to me.

@alfredats
Copy link
Contributor Author

Some changes have been made to the sCASP file, and progress has been made.

Right now, the interview generation still fails, but a new error appears:
error_rps

Scouring the docassemble-l4 repository for new_list points me to a find_relevant function within intgen.py:
new_list

It's used within generate_agendas in the same file, which makes me think that my lexsis encoding is now the culprit of the error. Will take a look at it again tomorrow during the morning pair programming session with Ruslan.

@alfredats
Copy link
Contributor Author

During the pair programming session, @kharus and I managed to fix the error listed above, but it only gave birth to another. He then pointed out that the docassemble-l4 repo is in desperate need of a test suite to ensure proper coverage of cases.

See smucclaw/docassemble-l4#14

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant