Separate questions and questionnaires #2513

Kakadus · 2025-09-24T12:28:43Z

close #457

featuring...
☑️ ~11 year old issue
☑️ >24k changed lines (nearly all in test data / tests though)
☑️ touch every file in the git tree
☑️ some non-trivial migrations

I await your comments or questions of questions with questions :)

niklasmohrin

Oh wow, this is quite the undertaking. I did not look too close at stuff yet, but here are some initial thoughts that I want to clear out first.

There are a number of changes in this PR that we could make independently (typing, refactors, added assertions), can you PR them in separately so that we clear some of the diff here? :D

evap/evaluation/models.py

evap/staff/tests/test_forms.py

evap/staff/tests/test_live.py

tools/check_consistent_question_texts.py

evap/student/views.py

extracted some independent changes from #2513 for easier reviewability 1. pylint rule is covered in ruff and needed for out-of-line imports in temporary tool 1. question types helped me a lot to avoid question <-> questionassignment confusions 1. unrelated typo fix 1. fixed odd questionnaire type handling in text answer exporter (+ added type assertion) found while tracing question usage

evap/staff/forms.py

niklasmohrin

didn't get far again, but here are some more thoughts :D

evap/evaluation/models.py

evap/results/tools.py

evap/staff/templates/staff_questionnaire_form.html

richardebeling

surprisingly little changes to production logic. Nice! I will have to look at migrations, tests, and test_data separately, but let's first agree on the actual implementation

evap/results/tools.py

niklasmohrin

crossed off some more files :) I agree with Richard, maybe we can actually get this PR through quicker than I thought and before #2450. Let's see how we progress on the frontend, I think the backend is pretty solid 👍

evap/evaluation/tests/test_commands.py

evap/evaluation/tests/test_views.py

Kakadus · 2025-11-07T13:15:43Z

I noticed a bug in the migrations (fixed in 82875a8): Somehow the unique constrained was removed after the migration. I suspect postgres drops the constraint with the column and django did not notice that.

You can see that A when directly accessing the db, and B when you alter the unique together check in a new migration.

niklasmohrin · 2025-11-16T15:38:55Z

Wait so what is the problem with the constraint being removed? Just that it is surprising, or does it actually result in database errors or so? Because the fix now is that we remove the constraint manually, which gives the result right? I feel that I didn't understand everything here :D

Kakadus · 2025-11-16T15:39:33Z

Wait so what is the problem with the constraint being removed? Just that it is surprising, or does it actually result in database errors or so? Because the fix now is that we remove the constraint manually, which gives the result right? I feel that I didn't understand everything here :D

first of all, there is no problem on main.
We have a unique together on (question, contribution, answer).

Here, the question field is removed:

EvaP/evap/evaluation/migrations/0158_unified_questions_from_tmp_relation.py

Lines 50 to 53 in 82875a8

    
           migrations.RemoveField( 
        
               model_name="ratinganswercounter", 
        
               name="question", 
        
           ),

By removing the field, postgres also drops the unique constraint, but Django still thinks it is there.
When the unique together is altered, Django tries to reference the old constraint, which subsequently fails.

Altering the unique together in the same migration worked before, I think, because Django references the constraint before the migration is run (through schema editor):

EvaP/evap/evaluation/migrations/0158_unified_questions_from_tmp_relation.py

Lines 123 to 126 in 82875a8

    
           migrations.AlterUniqueTogether( 
        
               name="ratinganswercounter", 
        
               unique_together={("assignment", "contribution", "answer")}, 
        
           ),

niklasmohrin · 2025-11-16T15:52:55Z

Ah, okay, Django trips up. Makes sense, thanks! And good catch

niklasmohrin

Great stuff, I am very happy with the database side of this change and have 20/27 files checked off. All that remains is the form.

Some notes / questions:

evap/staff/tests/test_live.py

evap/staff/views.py

evap/results/fixtures/minimal_test_data_results.json

evap/evaluation/migrations/0158_unified_questions_from_tmp_relation.py

evap/evaluation/migrations/0159_unique_question_texts.py

niklasmohrin

great stuff!

evap/staff/templatetags/questionnaire_templatetags.py

niklasmohrin · 2025-11-30T22:48:25Z

evap/staff/templates/staff_questionnaire_form.html

+                    type.tomselect.enable();
+                    allowTextanswer.disabled = false;
+                    question_id.value = "";
+                    tooltip.disable();


(commenting on somewhat random line of code) when loading the page and seeing the initial questions, the input elements are not disabled; they too should be disabled, or is it okay to edit those?

The select elements are not disabled in editable questionnaires because the user can still change the question assignment. When selecting a different question / creating a new option, the existing question won't be modified if it occurs in another questionnaire.

Let's reopen this discussion at a later point and focus on the old UI in this PR

niklasmohrin · 2025-11-30T22:57:51Z

evap/staff/templates/staff_questionnaire_form.html

I feel like we could maybe schedule a call with you, me, and @janno42 (and whoever else is interested) to make sure we all have the same final UI and behavior in mind. How do you feel about this? I think we have made good progress so far and I want to avoid stalling this PR with multiple review rounds about small details of this form

Things to discuss from my side:

Should new questions be created via new entries in tomselect, or via a modal as we said some time ago?

Given our n*m memory learnings, should we even use the current tomselect UI? Does it even make sense now that we never edit any individual field? Maybe a "select existing" modal with different search modes would be more intuitive?

What should the implementation look like? Custom element? Typescript interfaces?

Assuming we stay with the connected-tomselect approach, can we sensibly abstract this logic?

evap/evaluation/models.py

keep the textarea based question form

niklasmohrin

didn't check everything yet, but what I saw looks good; the form part is definitely the most tricky, but it looks sound

evap/student/tests/test_views.py

evap/staff/forms.py

niklasmohrin · 2026-01-04T23:10:46Z

evap/staff/forms.py

+        if self.instance.pk and self.instance.questionnaires.count() > 1 and self.has_changed():
+            self.instance.pk = None  # copy on write


Very clever :^)

I think this should be done in save() though

Sounds good, then we can even leave self.instance unchanged I guess?

Form.save basically calls just self.instance.save() if commit=True, otherwise users should save themselves, so we need to edit self.instance.
I tried setting self.instance.pk through cleaned_data, but that did not work

evap/staff/forms.py

niklasmohrin

Looking very good, I did another pass at checking of all easy files plus some remarks on the difficult parts. I think we are close to done :)

niklasmohrin · 2026-01-05T21:06:01Z

evap/staff/templates/staff_questionnaire_form.html

+                                    {% endfor %}
+                                    <td>{% include 'bootstrap_form_field_widget.html' with field=form_element.question_form.text_de %}</td>
+                                    <td>{% include 'bootstrap_form_field_widget.html' with field=form_element.question_form.text_en %}</td>
+                                    <td class="question-type d-inline-block" data-toggle="tooltip">


is this used?

Suggested change

<td class="question-type d-inline-block" data-toggle="tooltip">

<td class="question-type d-inline-block">

niklasmohrin · 2026-01-05T21:07:43Z

evap/staff/templates/staff_questionnaire_form.html

                        <tbody>
                            {% for form_element in formset %}
                                {% include 'bootstrap_form_errors.html' with errors=form_element.non_field_errors %}
+                                {% include 'bootstrap_form_errors.html' with errors=form_element.question_form.non_field_errors %}


(not a problem for this PR)

I think putting these error fields (and the hidden inputs above) into the table like this is illegal HTML. Not a problem, browser displays it correctly as far as I can tell

niklasmohrin · 2026-01-05T21:12:22Z

evap/staff/tests/test_views.py

+    def setUp(self):
+        super().setUp()


Why the change to instance setUp? I thought we only needed to do this for live tests?

niklasmohrin · 2026-01-05T21:16:33Z

evap/staff/tests/test_views.py

+
+        self.change_question().follow()
+
+        self.assertNotEqual(question, self.questionnaire.questions.get())


Can we add something like self.assertEqual(question.text_en, "old text")? Just so that we are not running into any object identity vs. equality doubts here

niklasmohrin · 2026-01-05T21:18:13Z

evap/staff/tests/test_views.py

+        form["question_assignments-0-DELETE"] = "on"
+        form["question_assignments-0-type"].force_value(-1)
+        form.submit().follow()
+        self.assertQuerySetEqual(question.questionnaires.all(), [])


should we add a check here that ensures that the question is "garbage collected" if its last assignment is deleted? I guess it should check the number of questions present in the database

niklasmohrin · 2026-01-05T21:24:39Z

evap/staff/forms.py

+            kwargs.pop("instance")
+            self.question_form = QuestionForm(*args, instance=self.instance.question, **kwargs)


Could this give a KeyError on pop? Or do we expect to always have instance? If so, we could also change the signature to *args, instance, **kwargs and pass it along or not depending on the branch

niklasmohrin · 2026-01-05T21:28:11Z

evap/staff/forms.py

+    def clean(self) -> None:
+        super().clean()
+        if not self.question_form.is_valid():
+            raise forms.ValidationError([])


Wouldn't this add no errors to the error list? I feel like it should be something like

Suggested change

raise forms.ValidationError([])

raise forms.ValidationError(_("Error validating question"))

or even

Suggested change

raise forms.ValidationError([])

raise forms.ValidationError(self.question_form.errors)

What do you think?

niklasmohrin · 2026-01-05T21:29:19Z

evap/staff/forms.py

+        self.instance.question = self.question_form.save(commit)
+        return super().save(commit)


Can we do the following?

Suggested change

self.instance.question = self.question_form.save(commit)

return super().save(commit)

self.instance.question = self.question_form.save(commit=commit)

return super().save(commit=commit)

Kakadus force-pushed the combined-questions branch 2 times, most recently from f5218c6 to 7b87d12 Compare September 25, 2025 06:45

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

Kakadus force-pushed the combined-questions branch 2 times, most recently from 91442b6 to 6602a7a Compare September 25, 2025 10:00

niklasmohrin self-requested a review October 14, 2025 20:59

niklasmohrin reviewed Oct 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

Kakadus force-pushed the combined-questions branch 3 times, most recently from 6f80f10 to 61bec79 Compare October 20, 2025 19:03

Kakadus mentioned this pull request Oct 22, 2025

Minor preparations for question/questionnaire split #2535

Merged

Kakadus force-pushed the combined-questions branch 3 times, most recently from 0c0bfd3 to 9356904 Compare October 27, 2025 15:40

Kakadus mentioned this pull request Oct 27, 2025

Cannot change question type and allows_additional_textanswers of text/heading questions simultaneously #2539

Open

Kakadus force-pushed the combined-questions branch from 9356904 to 94ca1d3 Compare October 27, 2025 16:55

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

Kakadus linked an issue Oct 27, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request

Cannot change question type and allows_additional_textanswers of text/heading questions simultaneously #2539

Open

Kakadus commented Oct 27, 2025

View reviewed changes

evap/staff/forms.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Kakadus requested review from niklasmohrin and removed request for niklasmohrin October 27, 2025 17:10

Kakadus force-pushed the combined-questions branch from 5f4e50d to 258bc8f Compare October 27, 2025 18:24

niklasmohrin mentioned this pull request Oct 30, 2025

Questionnaire management #2545

Open

niklasmohrin reviewed Nov 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

evap/evaluation/models.py Show resolved Hide resolved

evap/results/tools.py Show resolved Hide resolved

evap/staff/templates/staff_questionnaire_form.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Kakadus force-pushed the combined-questions branch 2 times, most recently from b324a0a to fbb8163 Compare November 4, 2025 16:35

richardebeling reviewed Nov 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

evap/results/tools.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

niklasmohrin reviewed Nov 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

evap/evaluation/tests/test_commands.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

evap/evaluation/tests/test_views.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Kakadus force-pushed the combined-questions branch 4 times, most recently from e6c10d7 to db268b9 Compare November 7, 2025 22:04

niklasmohrin reviewed Nov 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

Kakadus force-pushed the combined-questions branch 2 times, most recently from bceedab to 456c647 Compare November 22, 2025 11:36

niklasmohrin reviewed Nov 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

richardebeling reviewed Dec 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

evap/evaluation/models.py Show resolved Hide resolved

Kakadus force-pushed the combined-questions branch from 456c647 to 81fbb1c Compare January 4, 2026 12:45

separate questions from questionnaires

eac8f4b

keep the textarea based question form

Kakadus force-pushed the combined-questions branch from 81fbb1c to eac8f4b Compare January 4, 2026 12:46

Kakadus requested review from niklasmohrin and richardebeling January 4, 2026 16:58

niklasmohrin reviewed Jan 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

Kakadus added 4 commits January 5, 2026 18:09

fixup! add comment about disabled field validation

b39f1d4

fixup! simplify has_changed & test

b8bfb23

fixup! save linked forms in transaction

bb981e6

fixup! cleanup more and add another test

b1132eb

Kakadus force-pushed the combined-questions branch from f03121c to b1132eb Compare January 5, 2026 18:24

Kakadus requested a review from niklasmohrin January 5, 2026 18:39

niklasmohrin reviewed Jan 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

		if self.instance.pk and self.instance.questionnaires.count() > 1 and self.has_changed():
		self.instance.pk = None # copy on write

	<td class="question-type d-inline-block" data-toggle="tooltip">
	<td class="question-type d-inline-block">


		self.change_question().follow()

		self.assertNotEqual(question, self.questionnaire.questions.get())

		kwargs.pop("instance")
		self.question_form = QuestionForm(args, instance=self.instance.question, *kwargs)

	raise forms.ValidationError([])
	raise forms.ValidationError(_("Error validating question"))

	raise forms.ValidationError([])
	raise forms.ValidationError(self.question_form.errors)

		self.instance.question = self.question_form.save(commit)
		return super().save(commit)

Separate questions and questionnaires #2513

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Separate questions and questionnaires #2513

Uh oh!

Conversation

Kakadus commented Sep 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as outdated.

niklasmohrin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as outdated.

This comment was marked as outdated.

Uh oh!

niklasmohrin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

richardebeling left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

niklasmohrin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Kakadus commented Nov 7, 2025

Uh oh!

niklasmohrin commented Nov 16, 2025

Uh oh!

Kakadus commented Nov 16, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

niklasmohrin commented Nov 16, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

niklasmohrin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Kakadus Jan 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

niklasmohrin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Kakadus Jan 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Kakadus commented Sep 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Kakadus commented Nov 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

niklasmohrin commented Nov 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Kakadus Jan 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Kakadus Jan 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading