WW exercises are showing solutions in HTML

[Alex-Jordan]

Following the work extending from #953, the HTML output of a WW exercise is showing the solution, even with the stringparam set to no. At least true for an exercisegroup exercise, possibly true for all divisional exercises.

In one example in ORCCA's merge file, the structure where this happens is

<exercises>
  <exercisegroup cols="3">
    <exercise>
      <webwork-reps xml:id="extracted-webwork-18" ww-id="webwork-18">
        <pg source="BasicAlgebra/SignedNumbersArithemtic/AdditionWithNegativeNumbers10.pg"/>
        <static source="BasicAlgebra/SignedNumbersArithemtic/AdditionWithNegativeNumbers10.pg" seed="18">
          <statement><p>....
          ...</p></statement>

          <solution><p>...</p></solution>
        </static>

        <server-url hint="yes" solution="yes">...</server-url>
        <server-url hint="yes" solution="no">...</server-url>
        <server-url hint="no" solution="yes">...</server-url>
        <server-url hint="no" solution="no">...</server-url>
      </webwork-reps>
    </exercise>
    ...

[Alex-Jordan]

OK, I think I understand. The webwork tests are still using the old exercise.text.solution stringparam and similar. So this would have been an issue before as well. But the last time I built ORCCA, I had both the old and the new stringparams set for good measure. In the interim, I cut the old kind from my build.

So it is not a result of the recent fix. It's an entirely separate issue.

[rbeezer]

I think it was intentional neglect when I did all this work.

Does this mean that using the old switches is a reasonable workaround for right now?

[Alex-Jordan]

Does this mean that using the old switches is a reasonable workaround for right now?

Yes, I set such a build in motion and was waiting to see. And yes, that is coming out nicely. This time I checked inline and divisional exercises for good behavior. WW and non. Exercisegroup and not. :) So a temporary workaround it be.

[rbeezer]

OK, I won't wait long, but that takes off some pressure. Thanks for checking.

On 09/12/2018 03:22 PM, Alex Jordan wrote:

Does this mean that using the old switches is a reasonable workaround for
right now?

Yes, I set such a build in motion and was waiting to see. And yes, that is coming out nicely. This time I checked inline and divisional exercises for good behavior. WW and non. Exercisegroup and not. :) So a temporary workaround it be.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/rbeezer/mathbook/issues/957#issuecomment-420817565, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABy2chkbtujK04ZXYfJV2dfp4vGROQF4ks5uaYkigaJpZM4WmPo4.

[rbeezer]

I think this has been addressed at, or near, 3cbd75031d338cc6fefc6112b901086f342395f9 Re-open if I am mistaken.

[rbeezer]

But also see #965