design questions about webwork set definition files

[Alex Jordan]

I have design questions for people using WeBWorK. So anyone involved with Active Calculus, APEX Calculus, or DMOI, for example. But others too.

Your book can have 3 to 5 different "flavors" of webwork exercise:

1. inline exercises with a webwork
2. project-like with a webwork
3. divisional exercises with a webwork
4. worksheet exercises with a webwork (I haven't seen this, not sure if it is supported.)
5. handout exercises with a webwork (I haven't seen this, not sure if it is supported.)

PreTeXt automatically makes a folder tree for you containing:

• pg files
• set definition files
• set header files
• pg macros

This is so you can package it up, place it on a WW server, and assign WW exercises sets that align with your book. (You might not be using this feature at all, especially if you use your book on Runestone Academy.)

My question is about the set definition files. The present behavior is:

1. There is a set definition file containing all inline exercises plus all project-like exercises for the chunk level that you have set.
2. There is a set definition file containing all divisional exercises for the chunk level that you have set.

I don't know about worksheets or handouts.

First question. Is it correct/good to have a single set definition file grouping inline exercises and project-like together? Or would it be better to separate into one for inline exercises, and another for project-like? Should the answer depend on whether inline exercises and project-like are using the same counter?

Second question. Assuming webwork within worksheet/handout will be supported, does it make sense for each worksheet/handout in the book to have its own set definition file? Regardless of chunk level? Or should the chunk level matter here and for a given chunk, there is one set definition file listing all worksheet exercises that are descendents of that chunk?

[Sean Fitzpatrick]

I'm afraid I don't have an opinion for you here: APEX uses divisional WeBWorK only, and I've never used set definition files from PreTeXt. 

I've assigned the WeBWorK questions on Runestone, but outside of Runestone I have older question banks on WeBWorK I use instead of the PreTeXt ones.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PreTeXt development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pretext-dev...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-dev/CA%2BR-jrfDOGqEh1M-fXyrFQUt3_n8Qc35MrT30r-54YEN0%2BaDzg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mitch Keller]

I don’t feel strongly about combining or separating inline exercises and project-like. The Active books use project-like inline (currently inside worksheet, but with Oscar’s recent work, we will be able to remove the worksheet wrappers) and exercise only divisionally. 

I think your instinct about if inline exercises and project-like are on the same counter is a good one, however.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PreTeXt development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pretext-dev...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-dev/CA%2BR-jrfDOGqEh1M-fXyrFQUt3_n8Qc35MrT30r-54YEN0%2BaDzg%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
Mitch Keller
mi...@rellek.net

http://www.rellek.net/

[Oscar Levin]

I would think that having all the webwork questions split up by section, not distinguishing between inline/project/divisional/worksheet, would be sufficient.  If someone is using a webwork server and wants these resources, I am guessing that what they really want is a quick way to see all the problems, and then will customize the actual assignments anyway.  Easier to delete and split than combine.

[Rob Beezer]

s promised.

I taught linear algebra so many times, and became very familiar with the
textbook I used, so I would recycle course calendars.

It got to were I had enogh that if MLK Day was on Jan 17, I could find an old
calendar that required minimal effort to adapt. Unless it was a leap year.

Fall v. Spring - we had different numbers of total days.

We switched from MTuThF to MTuWF at one point. I agree with Joseph, maybe you
just need to start over - especially if go from three-days-a-week to
two-days-a-week.

Holidays - radically different Fall v. Spring ("Fall Break" for two days +
Thanksgiving v. "Spring Break" week).

Implementation. Version support is almost trivial code and has a wide variety
of applications. But even I get confused sometimes using it in novel ways. I
think things like #release should be their own deal. Maybe we do a pass in
"-assembly" *right after* we do versions and maybe we have smiliar code. that'd
be fine.

> big question is what lives in the publication file and what lives in docinfo

Funny you should ask. We now have:

Section 49.2: Choosing a Home for Configuration
https://pretextbook.org/doc/guide/html/developer-configuration-homes.html#developer-configuration-homes

I think that says the source has

<section release="exam5+3d>
<title>Solutions to Exam 5, Eigenvalues</title>
lah...blah..\lambda=2...blah

and the publisher file has

@start="2026-09-04"

Author's words, \lambda=2, are unchanged, but only invisible/visible as
influenced by the publisher file start value (and a system clock).

Maybe what is really new - the document produced - with no edits at all - will
be different on one day versus another day. But it should always reflect the
author's words in the way they meant them *relative* to other days (via a time
delta, not absolute time?). Or something like that.

task warrior is a CLI to-do list mangager, with flexible date specifications -
might be food for thought:

"Specifying Dates and Frequencies"

at https://linux.die.net/man/1/task

pcal is a CLI/text-file calendar tool

Less obvious where to look, see around line 227 for instance:

https://github.com/mmayer/pcal/blob/master/examples/pcal-cfg.txt

Rob

[Alex Jordan]

It's pretty certain that the "webwork" exercises in a divisional "exercises" will get their own set definition file (as they do now). That is the traditional source of homework exercises, and doing things this way lets you align the serial numbers of the exercises with the numbers used in the WW assignment.

That numbering consideration may or may not be so meaningful with the project-like and inline exercises though. Trying to suss that out.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-dev/7b24baab-16f8-4e7f-9e6e-304d1b9b61b2n%40googlegroups.com.

[Rob Beezer]

(And what I meant to say here.)

> Regardless of chunk level?

I'd say that if someone is not happy with this organization because of the
effect of the chunk level, then they should need to

(a) try a different chunk level, or

(b) re-organize their source in some way to behave more to their liking

Chunking is a natural reflection of your source, flexible (pick a chunking
level), and ubiquitous complicated code. I don't see ad-hoc adjustments like
this being practical.

Rob

On 8/1/26 14:29, Alex Jordan wrote:
> I have design questions for people using WeBWorK. So anyone involved with Active
> Calculus, APEX Calculus, or DMOI, for example. But others too.
>
> Your book can have 3 to 5 different "flavors" of webwork exercise:
>

> 1. inline exercises with a webwork
> 2. project-like with a webwork
> 3. divisional exercises with a webwork
> 4. worksheet exercises with a webwork (I haven't seen this, not sure if it is
> supported.)
> 5. handout exercises with a webwork (I haven't seen this, not sure if it is

> supported.)
>
> PreTeXt automatically makes a folder tree for you containing:
>

> * pg files
> * set definition files
> * set header files
> * pg macros

>
> This is so you can package it up, place it on a WW server, and assign WW
> exercises sets that align with your book. (You might not be using this feature
> at all, especially if you use your book on Runestone Academy.)
>
> My question is about the set definition files. The present behavior is:
>

> 1. There is a set definition file containing all inline exercises plus all

> project-like exercises for the chunk level that you have set.

> 2. There is a set definition file containing all divisional exercises for the

> chunk level that you have set.
>
> I don't know about worksheets or handouts.
>
> First question. Is it correct/good to have a single set definition file grouping
> inline exercises and project-like together? Or would it be better to separate
> into one for inline exercises, and another for project-like? Should the answer
> depend on whether inline exercises and project-like are using the same counter?
>
> Second question. Assuming webwork within worksheet/handout will be supported,
> does it make sense for each worksheet/handout in the book to have its own set
> definition file? Regardless of chunk level? Or should the chunk level matter
> here and for a given chunk, there is one set definition file listing all
> worksheet exercises that are descendents of that chunk?
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PreTeXt development" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email

> to pretext-dev...@googlegroups.com <mailto:pretext-
> dev+uns...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-dev/
> CA%2BR-jrfDOGqEh1M-fXyrFQUt3_n8Qc35MrT30r-54YEN0%2BaDzg%40mail.gmail.com

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pretext-dev/CA%2BR-jrfDOGqEh1M-
> fXyrFQUt3_n8Qc35MrT30r-54YEN0%2BaDzg%40mail.gmail.com?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.