FET Forum

I have a question, related to http://lalescu.ro/liviu/fet/forum/index.php?topic=2603.msg14012#msg14012 :

A constraint min days between activities, with force consecutive if same day = true. Can (should) two activities if on the same day span over a break?

In the present, two activities cannot be consecutive on the same day over a break if force consecutive is selected.

If I make this change, to allow spread over a break, I cannot undo it in subsequent FET versions.

Please try to give your opinion, it is an important question.

If you vote, please also write below a reply, so I know your name, and an explanation for your vote.

  I think it's a good idea, so the number of possible combination will be increased, the constraint will ease the algorithm, may be also the production time will be better.
My opinion: I agree.
I voted yes

If you vote, please also write below a reply, so I know your name, and an explanation for your vote.

I voted "YES".

because we have many lessons with duration 8+.
and all theese lessons must be on the same day. (sample: 5h + break + 5h)

Devrim Altınkurt

Thank you for the vote and the explanation, Devrim Altinkurt :)

Until the moment I will maybe modify this, you can deactivate the min days between activities constraints and use two activities consecutive or grouped constraints. Or you can remove the break constraint and decrease the number of hours per day.

I voted "Yes, change it: span over break is allowed", because I think that practically it is more "reasonable".

I voted "Yes" I do do use votes but don't allow misfits making doubles.... however, if I did need to use that I would be happy to have the classes spanning a break.

Thank you for your vote!

yes

I vote yes

I have many teachers who have 12-14 hours per week (5 days) in a single class, the grouping of activities is 3+3+3+3+2
and now FET does not consider the possibility of spreading the block in the day: this way the 3-hours blocks don't fit in the
2-hours afternoon period. But breaking the block (1 hour last morning + 2 hours afternoon) across the lunch break would resolve
and keep the consecution of hours.

Let me know if I understand and your change could resolve this problem.
Thanks

Quote from: flauta on September 23, 2016, 02:21:28 PM
I vote yes

I have many teachers who have 12-14 hours per week (5 days) in a single class, the grouping of activities is 3+3+3+3+2
and now FET does not consider the possibility of spreading the block in the day: this way the 3-hours blocks don't fit in the
2-hours afternoon period. But breaking the block (1 hour last morning + 2 hours afternoon) across the lunch break would resolve
and keep the consecution of hours.

Let me know if I understand and your change could resolve this problem.
Thanks

No, my question relates to something else. Relates for instance if your activity is split into 3+2+1, then FET will place the 2+1 in an afternoon. But it cannot place the 3, because an activity with duration 3 cannot be divided.

I would suggest you to simply not add the break in the timetable.

Quote from: Liviu Lalescu on July 25, 2016, 11:36:08 AM
I have a question, related to http://lalescu.ro/liviu/fet/forum/index.php?topic=2603.msg14012#msg14012 :

A constraint min days between activities, with force consecutive if same day = true. Can (should) two activities if on the same day span over a break?

In the present, two activities cannot be consecutive on the same day over a break if force consecutive is selected.

If I make this change, to allow spread over a break, I cannot undo it in subsequent FET versions.

Please try to give your opinion, it is an important question.

If you vote, please also write below a reply, so I know your name, and an explanation for your vote.

Hi, is there any progress about this?

Quote from: Devrim Altınkurt on October 14, 2016, 12:28:45 AM

Hi, is there any progress about this?

Actually, no, because I am still not convinced it is a good thing.

Quote from: Liviu Lalescu on October 14, 2016, 07:21:07 AM

Quote from: Devrim Altınkurt on October 14, 2016, 12:28:45 AM

Hi, is there any progress about this?

Actually, no, because I am still not convinced it is a good thing.

let me explain this,
maybe i can convince you :)

let say we have 1 day and 11 hours, one student group and one teacher.

time plan:
5h + 1break +5h

let say we have 3 subject:
A: 7h
B: 2h
C: 1h

how can you place this 3 subject to time plan?

1 possibility:
C+A+A+A+A+Break+A+A+A+B+B

another possibility:
B+B+C+A+A+Break+A+A+A+A+A

one another:
B+B+A+A+A+Break+A+A+A+A+C


*** --- ***

in our school we have many lessons which have 5+ hours
time plan: 5h+break+6h

if i split this lesson, there will be many empty hours for students.

if i do that: add a subject with 10h, and split 10 times (1+1+...+1) and add "two acts grouped" for all subacts.
1-2 grouped,
2-3 grouped,
3-4 grouped,
...
9-10 grouped.

maybe it will be the solution for this lesson.
:)

but the others?

how can you help me?
best regards.

one problem might be that it will have got a negative effect on their lessons/timetables.

for example if a school has got 2+2 hours activities with weight less then 100%.
in that case they might get a 1+break+3 hour, even they don't like that. especialy if that are schools with 1 fet hour = 30 minutes only. such a single 30 minutes hour will be useless for them.

or schools with even 15 minutes = 1 FET hour might get even more into trouble now. such 15 minutes efore of after a break. nearly nonsense for such schools.

There is a small misunderstanding. Say you have a single (sub)activity with duration d. FET will not split it, not even if I make this topic's implementation. A single (sub)activity is a thing, two (sub)activities are another thing. And in this topic it is about the constraint min days between activities, which will only place maximum two (sub)activities if they are on the same day with consecutive if same day = true.

A simple solution is to not use breaks at all. Just consider them invisible.

In addition to Volker's described problems, I saw a timetable in which the break was very large (between morning and evening). So it might be weird to allow two (sub)activities to span over this large break.

Please let me know.

Quote from: Volker Dirr on October 17, 2016, 02:53:57 PM
one problem might be that it will have got a negative effect on their lessons/timetables.

for example if a school has got 2+2 hours activities with weight less then 100%.
in that case they might get a 1+break+3 hour, even they don't like that. especialy if that are schools with 1 fet hour = 30 minutes only. such a single 30 minutes hour will be useless for them.

or schools with even 15 minutes = 1 FET hour might get even more into trouble now. such 15 minutes efore of after a break. nearly nonsense for such schools.

maybe you can add a new constraint like:
"activity can be seperated by break"

an idea:
if you add a checkbox to add/modify activity form
and if split=2 then this checkbox can be enable.

and than, if this checkbox is selected two split of act can be place on some day.

Quote from: Devrim Altınkurt on October 17, 2016, 03:18:18 PM
maybe you can add a new constraint like:
"activity can be seperated by break"

an idea:
if you add a checkbox to add/modify activity form
and if split=2 then this checkbox can be enable.

and than, if this checkbox is selected two split of act can be place on some day.

I am not sure I understand correctly.

It would be very difficult to allow a (sub)activity to span over a break (a single (sub)activity!). But I can add this in the TODO.

About two (sub)activities, it is easy to allow them to span over a break. But I am not convinced it is best for the official FET.

Let me know further clarification, so I know what to add in the TODO.

Also, I can think of making a custom version just for you, with these facilities. But to allow FET to divide a single (sub)activity over a break looks very difficult, a lot of code might need to change, because it is a fundamental change.

Quote from: Liviu Lalescu on October 17, 2016, 03:36:47 PM

Quote from: Devrim Altınkurt on October 17, 2016, 03:18:18 PM
maybe you can add a new constraint like:
"activity can be seperated by break"

an idea:
if you add a checkbox to add/modify activity form
and if split=2 then this checkbox can be enable.

and than, if this checkbox is selected two split of act can be place on some day.

I am not sure I understand correctly.

It would be very difficult to allow a (sub)activity to span over a break (a single (sub)activity!). But I can add this in the TODO.

About two (sub)activities, it is easy to allow them to span over a break. But I am not convinced it is best for the official FET.

Let me know further clarification, so I know what to add in the TODO.

Also, I can think of making a custom version just for you, with these facilities. But to allow FET to divide a single (sub)activity over a break looks very difficult, a lot of code might need to change, because it is a fundamental change.

i think, maybe you can think about only place AN ACTIVITY (not two acts / subacts) over a break.
i know it is diffucult problem. but i know there are another schools which want you do this in Turkey.
maybe you add an option ([ X ] can place over a break) for each activity (not subacts)
and the users can choice if the lesson place like this or not.

OK, I added this in the TODO.

Is possible to allow an activity of 3 hours (not split) to span over the break?

I know this can be done by splitting it into two/three and then adding a consecutive/group constraint. But I prefer it directly.

Quote from: Nagendra on June 11, 2019, 01:31:43 PM
Is possible to allow an activity of 3 hours (not split) to span over the break?

I know this can be done by splitting it into two/three and then adding a consecutive/group constraint. But I prefer it directly.

Definitely not :(

It would mean to change much of the structure of the FET internal data and the generate code, which is very tricky.

Ok.

I voted NO because I need consecutive hours without a break to give the same exam.

Thank you, Carine!

Suggestion: If it is possible to add this feature as an option (selection box) to this constraint,  it would be better and beneficial for everyone.

Oh, why didn't I/we think of this in 9 years now??? Simple solution and effective and general! Just great, Benahmed!

Maybe we could make the "force consecutive if on the same day" with three values: no, yes_continuously, yes_allowed_breaks_in_between, or something like that.

I will think of this. I will add this in the TODO.

thank you!

Thank you, as well! :)

Maybe the three-valued option:

"Consecutive if on the same day":

- "Indifferent". Or "Don't care".
- "Consecutive but allow break in between".
- "Consecutive" (default when adding a split activity or a constraint min days between activities).

When reading old files, make the new setting indifferent (if NO), or consecutive (if YES).

Other ideas? I don't like too much my 3 terms above...

Maybe, but I prefer to leave things as they are, and simply add one line with a selection square: allow a break between activities.

Quote from: Benahmed Abdelkrim on August 15, 2025, 02:51:07 PMMaybe, but I prefer to leave things as they are, and simply add one line with a selection square: allow a break between activities.

or this sentence:Allow consecutive activities to spread after a break time...

or this: if consecutive allow activities to spread after a break time.

I noted your opinion, but we need to think of this: adding two Boolean variables for a constraint complicates things. Also, there are not really 2x2=4 options, but only 3, because if the "Force consecutive if on same day" is false, the new variable "Allow breaks between activities" is useless.

Yes, I agree with you. It will be as you said: useless because the new variable will only work if the first variable works, but it is simple and understandable and does not complicate things too much.

For the moment, I still prefer my style, only 3 main options, not 2x2 (but it is in fact your important suggestion, let's not forget this!). It is more correct, because also we inform the user that NO means in fact INDIFFERENT (I think I met such reports).

I will respect your opinion and not rush to my solution. I need to analyze, and we need to talk. I will not go over your acceptance, I promise. Maybe we'll do it 2x2, but we need to think (fortunately, converting later to the other approach is possible and easy).

It is right that this constraint has another possibly redundant information: if the weight is 100%, the consecutive if same day variable is useless.

I thought that the clearest form for this feature would be a double check box... the first part should be "consecutive if on the same day"... this first part should always be "active"... (i.e. the user should always be able to check/uncheck it)... the second part should be "inactive" (i.e. the user should not be able to select anything) when the first check box is unchecked...) and become automatically "active" (i.e. the user should be able to check it) when the first check box is checked... and appear by default unchecked when the first one is unchecked... this second part should be a "sub-option" (a "nested" option) and appear "indented" to the right... (when compared to the first part/option)....  I think that the indication "allow break(s) between consecutive activities" is the clearest one I could think of...

Vangelis.

OK, I think you both are right. I will consider two check boxes. But I don't want to rush to this, because it is a critical change. I'll think about it.

It is like in a pocket calculator you want to change the "+" operator: simple, but critical. Everything depends on it. I am not sure I will be able to do it soon. The XML fet file changes, the generation routine changes. We need stability on FET.

I began trying this. I need to be very careful, as I said. And we need to test much. Hmm, I began trying it, but I am not satisfied with the outcome. I will think some more.

But, Benahmed, I suppose it is not useful for you or other Mornings-Afternoons mode users, since you don't usually input breaks between hours?

Also, for the Mornings-Afternoons mode, the two activities must be on the same half day if they are on the same real day. This is current in FET. Do you need to allow one activity morning and the other afternoon?

Not quite since some users introduce breaks between hours others don't. but personally I must admit that I use 100% weight for min days between activities. so this addition for me is useless. but my suggestion is general and maybe useful for others who use a weight < 100%. but if it leads to FET instability, avoiding it by keeping things as they are now is better.

Thank you for your opinion!

I added a third paragraph to my previous post, did you see it?

QuoteAlso, for the Mornings-Afternoons mode, the two activities must be on the same half day if they are on the same real day. This is current in FET. Do you need to allow one activity morning and the other afternoon?

I think that for the morning - afternoon mode it does not matter; the 2 activities placed in the same half-day or separated, one in the morning and the other in the afternoon... but we must accept that this is relative and depends a lot on the wishes of the users.

Thank you!

Maybe allowing breaks for the constraint (the check box would be checked) would allow one activity in the morning and the next one in the afternoon; otherwise, they must be immediately consecutive on the same half day.

Quote from: Liviu Lalescu on August 16, 2025, 04:21:57 PMThank you!

Maybe allowing breaks for the constraint (the check box would be checked) would allow one activity in the morning and the next one in the afternoon; otherwise, they must be immediately consecutive on the same half day.

agree with this idea.