Selecting the intersection of student groups vs. the union of student groups

[zblakley]

Hello,

Is there any possibility of adding student subgroups to an activity such that a year group (Y1, divided into subgroups A, B and 1, 2 and up, down) could be selected as the students that belong to both groups (like an AND operator), rather than the sum of both groups (like an OR operator)?

For instance, adding to an activity the student groups
Y1 A
Y1 2

would include students from Y1 that were in both subgroups A and 2, and exclude students from Y1 that were in A and 1.
so
Y1:A:2:up
Y1:A:2:down
not
Y1:B:2:up
Y1:B:2:down
Y1:A:1:up
Y1:A:1:down

With our course selection options, I may need an un-advisable number of divisions (Choices for language, science, arts and perhaps levels).
MYP5 A
MYP5 Physics

and populate the class with only MYP5:A:Physics subgroups

And another activity add
MYP5 B
MYP5 Physics

getting only MYP5:B:Physics
Without expecting all of MYP5 Physics to appear in both activities.

I hope this explanation is clear, and I realize this may not be feasible. But if this can be done, a full spectrum rainbow will have opened up directly upon me.

Thanks again,

[Liviu Lalescu]

Hello,

You can add 4 categories for a year, I hope it won't be too much. The ideal is to keep the number of total subgroups to a minimum, but under 5000 total subgroups is surely OK. I generated with 30,000 total subgroups on a contrived example and it solved, but it is very hard.

You can:

1) Use only the necessary intersection subgroups in the activities/constraints

or

2) Add a group Y1-A-2 in Y1, then add existing subgroups Y1-A-2-up and Y1-A-2-down in this group, and use the group Y1-A-2 in the activities/constraints.

Please let me know.

[zblakley]

Thank you, I can see that both of those solutions should work. Unfortunately, I think the time required and potential for user error will be quite large for the number of divisions I was looking at. 3*3*3*2*2*2 =216 (just for this year group).

MYP5 A
MYP5 B
MYP5 C

MYP5 Phys
MYP5 Chem
MYP5 Bio

MYP5 Ge
MYP5 Fr
MYP5 Sp

MYP5 DuLL
MYP5 DuLA

MYP5 EngA
MYP5 EngB

MYP Ma
MYP MaX

Few enough for FET to sort hopefully, but I will almost certainly make some errors somewhere assigning each subgroup manually into each activity or even into independent groups. With an 'intersection' option, I hoped it would directly pick the exclusive subgroups (and their counterparts).

I assume this 'intersection' option is not currently possible, but perhaps you might suggest another approach?
When just using A,B,C and blocking the other divisions together, it didn't seem to have the flexibility to complete a viable timetable.

Again, your time and effort are greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Zack

[Liviu Lalescu]

Hello, Zack,

This division, with 216 subgroups, is totally acceptable. I could try derive for you a custom version to create automatically intersection groups, like MYP5 A Phys, ..., in the divide year dialog by categories, if you are interested.

[zblakley]

I am very interested, and overjoyed!
If you were able to do this, I believe you would instantly become my personal hero.

[Liviu Lalescu]

OK, I will begin working. I will let you know.

[Liviu Lalescu]

I did it and I hope it works correctly. You can get it from: https://lalescu.ro/liviu/fet/download/custom/zblakley/

[zblakley]

Spectacular!

I have made the modifications to the divisions and generated a successful first draft for review.
The words to express my gratitude are certain to fall short: you have done me and my colleagues a great service.

I'm sure there will be more challenges in creating our schedule, but your support is paving the way to success.

My sincerest thanks,

Zack

[Liviu Lalescu]

You are welcome, and thank you for your kind words! 

[zblakley]

Greetings,

I have run into a bottleneck generating a new timetable and recognized a potential blunder I've made:
I inadvertently opened the .fet file in version 6.04 and made changes.
I then opened the modified file in the 6.03-zblakley program.

Is it possible that making changes between these version could corrupt the .fet file, or am I more likely just missing some other constraint problem?

Thanks again for the help,

Zack

[Liviu Lalescu]

Hello, Zack,

The versions should be perfectly compatible, only when you click "Divide year" the groups will be different.