support optional inquiry-data logging in NetLogo step

[stepheneb]

If a NetLogo model is used that has integrated the inquiry-data logging module developed for the VISUAL project then this updated NetLogo step type will extract the inquiry-log data and stave it in the step session.

See this example of an AirBag model that has integrated the inquiry-data logging module.

https://gist.github.com/stepheneb/5469959

The integrated inquiry-data logging module is derived from the work shown here developed for the VISUAL project:

http://visual.concord.org/experiments/netlogo-visual/models.html

In these examples the module is loaded separately from the actual NetLogo model with the following statement in the very beginning of the NetLogo code for the model:

__includes [ "data-export-modular.nls" ]

Here's where these resources/examples are available in a code repository: https://github.com/concord-consortium/lab/tree/WIP-refactor-properties/src/experiments/netlogo-visual/models

However there is a bug in the Windows version of the NetLogo applet and the only way an external module can be loaded is if it comes from the same directory location as the NetLogo *.logo file.

If the data-export-modular.nls module was included as a resource in this step the web application would need to synthesize a path for any NetLogo applet that requested it so it appeared to the NetLogo applet that data-export-modular.nls was being served from the same directory.

This of course would be a big improvement because with this initial implementation the code in data-export-modular.nls needs to be copied into every NetLogo applet that uses it.

If there is a bug fixed in data-export-modular.nls each NetLogo applet that uses it will need to be updated.

[stepheneb]

I would love to get some other developers to review this work.

I don't know enough about how the Java web application works to be able to quickly implement a feature where the server would provide the file: data-export-modular.nls to any NetLogo applet that attempted to load it from the same directory.

I'm going to look into how to extend the researcher reports for the step to provide better access to the inquiry-data and to find a way to provide Bob with a table of the inquirySummary data (these are custom inquiry-data he saves that describe student inquiry actions after a run.

[stepheneb]

FYI: here's the current compare branches view ... nice way to review some of the changes:

https://github.com/concord-consortium/WISE-VLE/compare/master...netlogo-inquiry-logging

[stepheneb]

Small correction to the link to the resources originally developed for VISUAL ... they are also on the m,aster branch of the repo:

https://github.com/concord-consortium/lab/tree/master/src/experiments/netlogo-visual/models

[stepheneb]

These commits are still missing some of the code I wrote previously in the tomcat dir.

The save function is no longer being called because this.contentPanel.save is null.

See this screenshot from FireBug:

I had this working but have not been able to restore this functionality.

[stepheneb]

OK, save functionality restored -- but a real WSE developer should look this over.

[stepheneb]

Hiroki, Thanks for merging the branch!

Let me know when it's on wise-qa.

Did you review my work? ... I wasn't sure it was ready for merging ...

For example I assumed there is a better way than this to make sure the contentPanel had a visible save function.

https://github.com/concord-consortium/WISE-VLE/commit/6fa56d866dc81af9d564b4d38e48a19b586c0c34#L0L9

Also while I can see the inquiry-data being saved in the stepWork table I don't see any of these data when I create researcher exports.

Wherever we discuss this (in pull requests or on the wise-dev list) is fine but I'd like to fix the researcher export problem and also know if there is a more sensible way to make sure the contentPanel had a visible save function. There's of course lots I don't know very well about how to write WISE steps so I assume maybe I'm missing some element of how the step should be setup or I've done something out of-the ordinary.

FYI: In general I have no problems at all if you review a pull request I make and ask me to fix things, etc. I'm happy to iterate on a pull request until it's right.