Code review request

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Branch name:
remove-end-pseudo-state-combined

Link to the relevant commit(s):
https://code.google.com/p/oppia/source/detail?r=3f64d73352a048c1fa3e7ec17e07f293
ad565b9b&name=remove-end-pseudo-state-combined

Purpose of code changes on this branch:
To remove the END pseudo state and instead require users to create an explicit 
END state to complete their exploration.

When reviewing my code changes, please focus on:
Ensuring the tests have good coverage over expected behavior.

After the review, I'll merge this branch into: develop
I will also be deleting both remove-end-pseudo-state and 
remove-end-pseudo-state-combined.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by bhenn...@google.com on 19 May 2015 at 5:57

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by bhenn...@google.com on 19 May 2015 at 6:04

[GoogleCodeExporter]

+Xinyu, Amy, Amit

Xinyu: Would you mind taking a look at the parts of the commit related to the 
exploration history graph?

Amy, Amit: FYI, the aim of this commit is to remove the explicit END state. If 
you could take it for a spin and validate that the behaviour is desirable, that 
would be great!

Original comment by s...@google.com on 20 May 2015 at 3:04

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Behavior works as intended. Truly like the improvements! I have some questions, 
as well (which may negate some of the behaviors we addressed, so apologies, 
just thinking out loud):

As a user, I find myself wanting one (or more) of the following things:
-The ability, when choosing a destination, to explicitly say "END 
CONVERSATION." Otherwise, (next point)--
- It feels counterintuitive to create a new state for the interaction to be the 
end. It's an extra added step for the user. The content they would've put in 
the "Next state" could easily be in the feedback. I can't imagine a scenario 
where that wouldn't work (open to opinions here!)
- The "END CONVERSATION" is not actually an interaction, it's a state. 
Wondering if there's justification around removing it from the interaction 
menu, and for it to ONLY live in the destinations?

Original comment by amylat...@google.com on 20 May 2015 at 8:00

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Behavior works as intended. Truly like the improvements! I have some questions, 
as well (which may negate some of the behaviors we addressed, so apologies, 
just thinking out loud):

As a user, I find myself wanting one (or more) of the following things:
-The ability, when choosing a destination, to explicitly say "END 
CONVERSATION." Otherwise, (next point)--
- It feels counterintuitive to create a new state for the interaction to be the 
end. It's an extra added step for the user. The content they would've put in 
the "Next state" could easily be in the feedback. I can't imagine a scenario 
where that wouldn't work (open to opinions here!)
- The "END CONVERSATION" is not actually an interaction, it's a state. 
Wondering if there's justification around removing it from the interaction 
menu, and for it to ONLY live in the destinations?

Original comment by amylat...@google.com on 20 May 2015 at 8:00

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I just chatted with Amit about this. Here's our thoughts:

- We can't just have the END state selection in the rule selector, because 
there would be no way to personalize its content. It's true that we may be able 
to put this content in the feedback, but it seems likely that there'll be a lot 
of repetition there if we have to do it for each feedback rule -- think of it 
as the exploration 'handing off' to someone else.
- A suggestion for how to proceed is to have the default exploration consist of 
two states: an Initial State and an END state. The END state would be 
prepopulated with an EndExploration interaction and the usual congratulatory 
text. The idea behind this proposal is that, if the END state is already there, 
users will not need to create it themselves. Note that the Initial State will 
still have no interaction specified, to keep the first experience simple.

What do you think?

Original comment by s...@google.com on 20 May 2015 at 11:18

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Update: Ben will be implementing changes for branch 
"remove-end-pseudo-state-combined" based on user testing. We still have some 
work to do around rules and states, which was getting in the way of the test. 
Experiment to follow next week.

Original comment by amylat...@google.com on 22 May 2015 at 8:21