Problème affichage sous-goupes

[technoweb]

Bonjour,

Je remercie toute l'équipe qui a contribué à la réalisation de ce logiciel car c'est une pure merveille !

Mon problème (pas si grave mais ennuyant) c'est quand je programme une activité par groupes ou par section qui dure 2 heures, les détails ne sont pas répétés sur les 2 heures (ce qui est bien).Mais quand c'est une activité par sous groupes il affiche les MEMES détails dans les 2 cases. Donc si j'ai 3 ou 4 enseignants l'affichage est très vite encombré.
Est-ce qu'il y a un moyen de l'éviter ? 

Merci.

[Liviu Lalescu]

Je ne peut pas dire, Volker connait ce part. Je vais lui dire, mais il ne sais pas Francais. Peut etre lui va utiliser Google translate.

[technoweb]

Thank you for the response.

I translate but not in a good english.

I thank the whole team who contributed to the realization of this software because it is a marvel!

My problem (not so bad but annoying) is when I program a group or section activity that lasts 2 hours, the details are not repeated over 2 hours in the timetable (which is fine). But when it's an activity by subgroups it displays the SAME details in the 2 boxes. So if I have 3 or 4 teachers displaying is very fast congested.
Is there a way to avoid it?

Thanks a lot.

[Volker Dirr]

It is sadly difficult to detect that sometimes. it is so easy to see it as a human, but it is difficult to code :-(
Overall there are 3 big problems:
- the duration might be different
- there might be also a (shorter/longer) "same staring time" activity needed in that cell
- it might happen that a subgroup has got free at the start of that "span"

[technoweb]

Here is my FET file.

The problem is for all subgroups because each pair has 2 activities (with 2 hours each one) at the same time.

For example, if i want to print the timetable for group L1.G11 (with details of subgroups L1.G111 and L1.G112 having 2 parallel activities "MARDI : 08:30 to 11:30) the details are not merged in only one box.

[Liviu Lalescu]

Yes, unfortunately Volker said that it is too difficult to correct the problem.

Oui, malheuresement Volker a dit qu'il est trop difficile de corrijer le probleme.

[technoweb]

Ok thank you very much for your quick response.

And good continuation.

[Liviu Lalescu]

Merci

[Volker Dirr]

Yes, sadly difficult.
I know you talk for example about first and second hour on day Mardi.
I know it is easy to see as a human, that L1.G111 and L1.G112 can get a span in the L1.G11 table.

But it is very difficult to detect that, because there are at least 3 problems i need to check:
- it is only working if both have got the same duration. (in this case yes. easy to check)
- it is only working if no other activity of the same group/year already started earlier or will start later (very difficult to detect)
- it is only working if the same starting time activities have got the same duration. (i guess easy to check)

For example have a look at group L1.S1 at day Mardi first and second hour. As you can see group L1.G12 has only duration 1, but the other have got duration 2. So it is impossible to span them.
This problem is easy to check, (since it is checkable with "rule 1").
But it will be very difficult to detect this problem, if the L1.G12 activity starts in the second hour. (It will be also difficult if it starts earlier, for example in hour "0" with duration 2. Than a span will be also impossible.)
I need to check for those impossible span problem if i want to do spans in timetables. But it is difficult to code that.

[Volker Dirr]

Gladly you have got only very less subgroups. not much more then groups. so i suggest to print the subgroup timetables, since in that tables the span is used (enabled).

[technoweb]

Thank you Volker Dirr for the suggestion.

But the problem with this suggestion is that the timetables by subgroups are incomplete because 2 subgroups (ex.: L1.G111 and L1.G112) have 2 different activities in the same time and switched each week.

I used this tip because i dont see another solution to representate this configuration.

My students are structured as follow:
Years :                           L1                                                            L2                                       L3                              M1
Sections :                 S1/S2/S3                                                  S1/S2                                 S1/S2                        S1/S2
Groupes:       G11/G12-G21/G22-G31/G32                    G11/G12-G21/G22             G11/G12-G21/G22   G11/G12-G21/G22
Subgroups : G111/G112-G121/G122-G211/G212...

So, it's normal that S1 dont merge G11 and G12 because they have two different activities in 2 hours.
But if they had the same activity with the same duration (or two activities at the same starting time and same duration) it is suitable to merge it (like subgroups L1.G111 and L1.G112).

I think that each parent is not merged for multiple durations if it has multiple sons.
For example : In the parent L1.S1 in day Lundi at (14:00-15:30) and (15:30-17:00) its sons L1.G11 and L1.G12 have the same activity (each one) for 2 hours. The same details are reported 2 times.

I hope helped.

Thank you again.

[technoweb]

I think that it is enough just to check the rule 1 and the rule 3 because if they are verified it implies that the 2 is checked because otherwise there is violation of constraint (2 activities at the same time for the same learner).