|
|
|
|
<!---
|
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Dvoustrankovy uvod - co by to melo umet
|
|
|
|
|
* Analýza - co se rozhodneme delat, jak by se to dalo delat, pridelit dulezitost
|
|
|
|
|
- pak se da odkazat na to, proc jsme co nestihli, zahrnout i advanced featury
|
|
|
|
|
- odkazovat se u featur, ze to je v planu v pristich verzi - co je dulezite
|
|
|
|
|
a co ne!! Zduvodnit tim, jakou podmnozinu featur nechat, snaze se pak bude
|
|
|
|
|
popisovat architektura
|
|
|
|
|
* V analyze vysvetlit architekturu
|
|
|
|
|
* Related works nechat jako samostatnou kapitolu
|
|
|
|
|
* Poradi - pozadavky -> related works -> analyza
|
|
|
|
|
* Provazani komponent musi rozumet administrator a tvurce ulohy - obecna
|
|
|
|
|
kapitola v analyze - puvodni kapitola o analyze byla povedena, jen se tam
|
|
|
|
|
micha seznam zprav nebo co - to nezajima vsechny
|
|
|
|
|
* Po obecnym uvodu - rozdelit podle potencialniho ctenare - uzivatel ucitel, pak
|
|
|
|
|
uzivatel admin
|
|
|
|
|
* Instalacni dokumentace stranou, jako posledni
|
|
|
|
|
* Uzivatelaka dokumentace - admin: popis prav, autor uloh: nejobsahlejsi, format
|
|
|
|
|
skriptu - ale formulovat tak, ze bude popis na co kde kliknout, jazyk popsat
|
|
|
|
|
separatne - v budoucnu to bude irelevantni, je potreba daleko hloubeji - je
|
|
|
|
|
treba popsat detailne co eelaji, i treba relativni/absolutni adresy, makra,
|
|
|
|
|
kde vidi prekladac knihovny a headery... - kapitola na konci
|
|
|
|
|
* Uzivatelska dokumentace pro studenta: vysvetleni
|
|
|
|
|
* Jak se boduje uloha - tezko rict, kam to patri - nekde na zacatku? Ale zajima
|
|
|
|
|
to vsechny role, ucitel musi vedet, jak to nakonfigurovat - zminit treba i jak
|
|
|
|
|
bodovat podle casu a pameti (v analyze nebo v uvodu) - vice vystupu od judge,
|
|
|
|
|
interpolace bodu podle vyuziti pameti... je to spis mimo uživatelskou
|
|
|
|
|
* Nepsat kde na jake tlacitko kliknout
|
|
|
|
|
* Tutorialy - scenare, co udelat kdyz chci neco, vzorove pruchody
|
|
|
|
|
* U formularu je nejlepsi kdyz zadna dokumentace neni, doplnit popisky k polim
|
|
|
|
|
formularu
|
|
|
|
|
* V dokumentaci popsat konfigy nekde separatne - skore, yaml - referencni
|
|
|
|
|
dokumentace
|
|
|
|
|
* Urcite ne FAQ, vic strukturovane
|
|
|
|
|
* Instalaci dohromady na konec
|
|
|
|
|
* Programatorska dokumentace - "nejmene ctenaru" - neco uz tam mame, neni to
|
|
|
|
|
treba davat do tistene dokumentace - do tistene dokumentace dat odkaz na wiki,
|
|
|
|
|
neco v tistene ale byt musi - jaky jazyk, designové rozhodnutí - zdůvodnění
|
|
|
|
|
nedávat do úvodní analýzy - k referencnim dokumentacim udelat uvod - "restove
|
|
|
|
|
API jsme pojali timto zpusobem, deli se to na tyto skupiny, ..."
|
|
|
|
|
* Co zvolena architektura znamena, neco to ma dat i uzivateli, ktery
|
|
|
|
|
architekturu nezna, kde je drzenej stav
|
|
|
|
|
* Z dokumentace musi byt patrne, co dela knihovna a co se musi udelat rucne -
|
|
|
|
|
kolik je to prace - psat to vic pro uzivatele, ktery zna technologie, nezna
|
|
|
|
|
knihovny
|
|
|
|
|
* Mit soucit s tema, ktery to toho tolik neznaji - jak technologie, tak
|
|
|
|
|
architekturu a system CodExu
|
|
|
|
|
* Nesedi cisla stranek
|
|
|
|
|
* Stazeni ZIPu s vystupy Backendu - roztridit na verejne a tajne, verejne i pro
|
|
|
|
|
studenta
|
|
|
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Introduction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generally, there are many different ways and opinions on how to teach people
|
|
|
|
|
something new. However, most people agree that a hands-on experience is one of
|
|
|
|
|
the best ways to make the human brain remember a new skill. Learning must be
|
|
|
|
|
entertaining and interactive, with fast and frequent feedback. Some kinds of
|
|
|
|
|
knowledge are more suitable for this practical type of learning than others, and
|
|
|
|
|
fortunately, programming is one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University education system is one of the areas where this knowledge can be
|
|
|
|
|
applied. In computer programming, there are several requirements a program
|
|
|
|
|
should satisfy, such as the code being syntactically correct, efficient and easy
|
|
|
|
|
to read, maintain and extend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Checking programs written by students takes time and requires a lot of
|
|
|
|
|
mechanical, repetitive work -- reviewing source codes, compiling them and
|
|
|
|
|
running them through testing scenarios. It is therefore desirable to automate as
|
|
|
|
|
much of this work as possible. The first idea of an automatic evaluation system
|
|
|
|
|
comes from Stanford University professors in 1965. They implemented a system
|
|
|
|
|
which evaluated code in Algol submitted on punch cards. In following years, many
|
|
|
|
|
similar products were written.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In today's world, properties like correctness and efficiency can be tested
|
|
|
|
|
automatically to a large extent. This fact should be exploited to help teachers
|
|
|
|
|
save time for tasks such as examining bad design, bad coding habits and logical
|
|
|
|
|
mistakes, which are difficult to perform automatically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are two basic ways of automatically evaluating code -- statically
|
|
|
|
|
(checking the source code without running it; safe, but not very precise) or
|
|
|
|
|
dynamically (running the code on test inputs and checking the correctness of
|
|
|
|
|
outputs ones; provides good real world experience, but requires extensive
|
|
|
|
|
security measures).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This project focuses on the machine-controlled part of source code evaluation.
|
|
|
|
|
First, general concepts of grading systems are observed and problems of the
|
|
|
|
|
software previously used at Charles University in Prague are briefly discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
Then new requirements are specified and projects with similar functionality are
|
|
|
|
|
examined. With acquired knowledge from such projects in production, we set up
|
|
|
|
|
goals for the new evaluation system, designed the architecture and implemented a
|
|
|
|
|
fully operational solution based on dynamic evaluation. The system is now ready
|
|
|
|
|
for production testing at the university.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Assignment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The major goal of this project is to create a grading application that will be
|
|
|
|
|
used for programming classes at the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics of the
|
|
|
|
|
Charles University in Prague. However, the application should be designed in a
|
|
|
|
|
modular fashion to be easily extended or even modified to make other ways of
|
|
|
|
|
usage possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The system should be capable of dynamic analysis of submitted source codes. This
|
|
|
|
|
consists of following basic steps:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. compile the code and check for compilation errors
|
|
|
|
|
2. run compiled binary in a sandbox with predefined inputs
|
|
|
|
|
3. check constraints on used amount of memory and time
|
|
|
|
|
4. compare program outputs with predefined values
|
|
|
|
|
5. award the code with a numeric score
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole system is intended to help both teachers (supervisors) and students.
|
|
|
|
|
To achieve this, it is crucial to keep in mind the typical usage scenarios of
|
|
|
|
|
the system and to try to make these tasks as simple as possible. To fulfil this
|
|
|
|
|
task, the project has a great starting point -- there is an old grading system
|
|
|
|
|
currently used at the university (CodEx), so its flaws and weaknesses can be
|
|
|
|
|
addressed. Furthermore, many teachers desire to use and test the new system and
|
|
|
|
|
they are willing to consult ideas or problems during development with us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Current system
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The grading solution currently used at the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics of
|
|
|
|
|
the Charles University in Prague was implemented in 2006 by a group of students.
|
|
|
|
|
It is called [CodEx -- The Code Examiner](http://codex.ms.mff.cuni.cz/project/)
|
|
|
|
|
and it has been used with some improvements since then. The original plan was to
|
|
|
|
|
use the system only for basic programming courses, but there was a demand for
|
|
|
|
|
adapting it for many different subjects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CodEx is based on dynamic analysis. It features a web-based interface, where
|
|
|
|
|
supervisors can assign exercises to their students and the students have a time
|
|
|
|
|
window to submit their solutions. Each solution is compiled and run in sandbox
|
|
|
|
|
(MO-Eval). The metrics which are checked are: correctness of the output, time
|
|
|
|
|
and memory limits. It supports programs written in C, C++, C#, Java, Pascal,
|
|
|
|
|
Python and Haskell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The system has a database of users. Each user is assigned a role, which
|
|
|
|
|
corresponds to his/her privileges. There are user groups reflecting the
|
|
|
|
|
structure of lectured courses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A database of exercises (algorithmic problems) is another part of the project.
|
|
|
|
|
Each exercise consists of a text describing the problem (optionally in two
|
|
|
|
|
language variants -- Czech and English), an evaluation configuration
|
|
|
|
|
(machine-readable instructions on how to evaluate solutions to the exercise) and
|
|
|
|
|
a set of inputs and reference outputs. Exercises are created by instructed
|
|
|
|
|
privileged users. Assigning an exercise to a group means choosing one of the
|
|
|
|
|
available exercises and specifying additional properties: a deadline (optionally
|
|
|
|
|
a second deadline), a maximum amount of points, a configuration for calculating
|
|
|
|
|
the score, a maximum number of submissions, and a list of supported runtime
|
|
|
|
|
environments (e.g. programming languages) including specific time and memory
|
|
|
|
|
limits for each one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Typical use cases for supported user roles are following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **student**
|
|
|
|
|
- create new user account via registration form
|
|
|
|
|
- join a group
|
|
|
|
|
- get assignments in group
|
|
|
|
|
- submit solution to assignment -- upload one source file and trigger
|
|
|
|
|
evaluation process
|
|
|
|
|
- view solution results -- which parts succeeded and failed, total number of
|
|
|
|
|
acquired points, bonus points
|
|
|
|
|
- **supervisor**
|
|
|
|
|
- create exercise -- create description text and evaluation configuration
|
|
|
|
|
(for each programming environment), upload testing inputs and outputs
|
|
|
|
|
- assign exercise to group -- choose exercise and set deadlines, number of
|
|
|
|
|
allowed submissions, weights of all testing cases and amount of points for
|
|
|
|
|
correct solutions
|
|
|
|
|
- modify assignment
|
|
|
|
|
- view all results in group
|
|
|
|
|
- check automatic solution grading -- view submitted source and optionally
|
|
|
|
|
set bonus points
|
|
|
|
|
- **administrator**
|
|
|
|
|
- create groups
|
|
|
|
|
- alter user privileges -- make supervisor accounts
|
|
|
|
|
- check system logs, upgrades and other management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Exercise evaluation chain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The most important part of the system is evaluation of solutions submitted by
|
|
|
|
|
students. The process leading from source code to final results (score) is
|
|
|
|
|
described in more detail below to give readers a solid overview of what happens
|
|
|
|
|
during the evaluation process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First thing students have to do is to submit their solutions through web user
|
|
|
|
|
interface. The system checks assignment invariants (deadlines, count of
|
|
|
|
|
submissions, ...) and stores the submitted code. The runtime environment is
|
|
|
|
|
automatically detected based on input file extension and a suitable evaluation
|
|
|
|
|
configuration variant is chosen (one exercise can have multiple variants, for
|
|
|
|
|
example C and Java languages). This exercise configuration is then used for
|
|
|
|
|
taking care of evaluation process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a pool of uniform worker machines dedicated to evaluation jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
Incoming jobs are kept in a queue until a free worker picks them. Workers are
|
|
|
|
|
capable of sequential evaluation of jobs, one at a time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The worker obtains the solution and its evaluation configuration, parses it and
|
|
|
|
|
starts executing the contained instructions. It is crucial to keep the worker
|
|
|
|
|
computer secure and stable, so a sandboxed environment is used for dealing with
|
|
|
|
|
unknown source code. When the execution is finished, results are saved and the
|
|
|
|
|
submitter is notified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The output of the worker contains data about the evaluation, such as time and
|
|
|
|
|
memory spent on running the program for each test input and whether its output
|
|
|
|
|
was correct. The system then calculates a numeric score from this data, which is
|
|
|
|
|
presented to the student. If the solution is wrong (incorrect output, uses too
|
|
|
|
|
much memory,..), error messages are also displayed to the submitter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Weaknesses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current system is old, but robust. There were no major security incidents
|
|
|
|
|
during its production usage. However, from today's perspective there are
|
|
|
|
|
several drawbacks. The main ones are:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **web interface** -- The web interface is simple and fully functional.
|
|
|
|
|
However, recent rapid development in web technologies opens new horizons of
|
|
|
|
|
how web interfaces can be made.
|
|
|
|
|
- **web API** -- CodEx offers a very limited XML API based on outdated
|
|
|
|
|
technologies that is not sufficient for users who would like to create custom
|
|
|
|
|
interfaces such as a command line tool or mobile application.
|
|
|
|
|
- **sandboxing** -- MO-Eval sandbox is based on principle of monitoring system
|
|
|
|
|
calls and blocking the bad ones. This can be easily done for single-threaded
|
|
|
|
|
applications, but proves difficult with multi-threaded ones. In present day,
|
|
|
|
|
parallelism is a very important area of computing, so there is requirement to
|
|
|
|
|
test multi-threaded applications too.
|
|
|
|
|
- **instances** -- Different ways of CodEx usage scenarios requires separate
|
|
|
|
|
installations (Programming I and II, Java, C#, etc.). This configuration is
|
|
|
|
|
not user friendly (students have to register in each instance separately) and
|
|
|
|
|
burdens administrators with unnecessary work. CodEx architecture does not
|
|
|
|
|
allow sharing hardware between instances, which results in an inefficient use
|
|
|
|
|
of hardware for evaluation.
|
|
|
|
|
- **task extensibility** -- There is a need to test and evaluate complicated
|
|
|
|
|
programs for classes such as Parallel programming or Compiler principles,
|
|
|
|
|
which have a more difficult evaluation chain than simple
|
|
|
|
|
compilation/execution/evaluation provided by CodEx.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Requirements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are many different formal requirements for the system. Some of them
|
|
|
|
|
are necessary for any system for source code evaluation, some of them are
|
|
|
|
|
specific for university deployment and some of them arose during the ten year
|
|
|
|
|
long lifetime of the old system. There are not many ways to improve CodEx
|
|
|
|
|
experience from the perspective of a student, but a lot of feature requests come
|
|
|
|
|
from administrators and supervisors. The ideas were gathered mostly from our
|
|
|
|
|
personal experience with the system and from meetings with faculty staff
|
|
|
|
|
involved with the current system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In general, CodEx features should be preserved, so only differences are
|
|
|
|
|
presented here. For clear arrangement all the requirements and wishes are
|
|
|
|
|
presented grouped by categories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### System features
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
System features represents directly accessible functionality to users of the
|
|
|
|
|
system. They describe the evaluation system in general and also university
|
|
|
|
|
addons (mostly administrative features).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Requirements of the users
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- _group hierarchy_ -- creating an arbitrarily nested tree structure should be
|
|
|
|
|
supported to allow keeping related groups together, such as in the example
|
|
|
|
|
below. A group hierarchy also allows archiving data from past courses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
Summer term 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|-- Language C# and .NET platform
|
|
|
|
|
| |-- Labs Monday 10:30
|
|
|
|
|
| `-- Labs Thursday 9:00
|
|
|
|
|
|-- Programming I
|
|
|
|
|
| |-- Labs Monday 14:00
|
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- _a database of exercises_ -- teachers should be able to create exercises
|
|
|
|
|
including textual description, sample inputs and correct reference outputs
|
|
|
|
|
(for example "sum all numbers from given file and write the result to the
|
|
|
|
|
standard output") and to browse this database
|
|
|
|
|
- _customizable grading system_ -- teachers need to specify the way of
|
|
|
|
|
computation of the final score, which will be awarded to the student's
|
|
|
|
|
submissions depending on their quality
|
|
|
|
|
- _viewing student details_ -- teachers should be able to view the details of
|
|
|
|
|
their students (members of their groups), including all submitted solutions
|
|
|
|
|
- _awarding additional points_ -- adding (or subtracting) points from the final
|
|
|
|
|
score of a submission by a supervisor must be supported
|
|
|
|
|
- _marking a solution as accepted_ -- the system should allow marking one
|
|
|
|
|
particular solution as accepted (used for grading the assignment) by the
|
|
|
|
|
supervisor
|
|
|
|
|
- _solution resubmission_ -- teachers should be able edit student's solutions
|
|
|
|
|
and privately resubmit them, optionally saving all results (including
|
|
|
|
|
temporary ones); this feature can be used to quickly fix obvious errors in the
|
|
|
|
|
solution and see if it is otherwise viable
|
|
|
|
|
- _localization_ -- all texts (UI and exercises) should be translatable
|
|
|
|
|
- _formatted exercise texts_ -- Markdown or another lightweight markup language
|
|
|
|
|
should be supported for formatting exercise texts
|
|
|
|
|
- _exercise tags_ -- the system should support tagging exercises searching by
|
|
|
|
|
these tags
|
|
|
|
|
- _comments_ -- adding both private and public comments to exercises, tests and
|
|
|
|
|
solutions should be supported
|
|
|
|
|
- _plagiarism detection_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Administrative requirements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- _pluggable user interface_ -- the system should allow using an alternative
|
|
|
|
|
user interface, such as a command line client; implementation of such clients
|
|
|
|
|
should be as straightforward as possible
|
|
|
|
|
- _privilege separation_ -- there should be at least two roles -- _student_ and
|
|
|
|
|
_supervisor_. Cases when a student of a course is also a teacher of another
|
|
|
|
|
lab must be handled correctly
|
|
|
|
|
- _alternate authentication methods_ -- logging in through a university
|
|
|
|
|
authentication system (e.g. LDAP) and potentially other services, such as
|
|
|
|
|
OAuth, should be supported
|
|
|
|
|
- _querying SIS_ -- loading user data from the university information system
|
|
|
|
|
should be supported
|
|
|
|
|
- _sandboxing_ -- there should be a safe environment in which the students'
|
|
|
|
|
solutions are executed to prevent system failures due to malicious code being
|
|
|
|
|
submitted; the sandboxed environment should have the least possible impact on
|
|
|
|
|
measurement results (most importantly on measured times)
|
|
|
|
|
- _heterogeneous worker pool_ -- there must be support for submission evaluation
|
|
|
|
|
in multiple programming environments in a single installation to avoid
|
|
|
|
|
unacceptable workload for the administrator (maintaining a separate
|
|
|
|
|
installation for every course) and high hardware occupation
|
|
|
|
|
- advanced low-level evaluation flow configuration with high-level abstraction
|
|
|
|
|
layer for ordinary configuration cases; the configuration should be able to
|
|
|
|
|
express more complicated flows than just compiling a source code and running
|
|
|
|
|
the program against test inputs -- for example, some exercises need to build
|
|
|
|
|
the source code with a tool, run some tests, then run the program through
|
|
|
|
|
another tool and perform additional tests
|
|
|
|
|
- use of modern technologies with state-of-the-art compilers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Non-functional requirements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-functional requirements are requirements of technical character with no
|
|
|
|
|
direct mapping to visible parts of the system. In an ideal world, users should
|
|
|
|
|
not know about these features if they work properly, but would be at least
|
|
|
|
|
annoyed if they did not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- _no installation_ -- the primary user interface of the system must be
|
|
|
|
|
accessible on users' computers without the need to install any additional
|
|
|
|
|
software
|
|
|
|
|
- _performance_ -- the system must be ready for at least hundreds of students
|
|
|
|
|
and tens of supervisors using it at once
|
|
|
|
|
- _automated deployment_ -- all of the components of the system must be easy to
|
|
|
|
|
deploy in an automated fashion
|
|
|
|
|
- _open source licensing_ -- the source code should be released under a
|
|
|
|
|
permissive licence allowing further development; this also applies to used
|
|
|
|
|
libraries and frameworks
|
|
|
|
|
- _multi-platform worker_ -- worker machines running Linux, Windows and
|
|
|
|
|
potentially other operating systems must be supported
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Conclusion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The survey shows that there are a lot of different requirements and wishes for
|
|
|
|
|
the new system. When the system is ready, it is likely that there will be new
|
|
|
|
|
ideas on how to use the system and thus the system must be designed to be easily
|
|
|
|
|
extendable, so that these new ideas can be easily implemented, either by us or
|
|
|
|
|
community members. This also means that widely used programming languages and
|
|
|
|
|
techniques should be used, so that users can quickly understand the code and
|
|
|
|
|
make changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Related work
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To find out the current state in the field of automatic grading systems, we did
|
|
|
|
|
a short market survey on the field of automatic grading systems at universities,
|
|
|
|
|
programming contests, and possibly other places where similar tools are
|
|
|
|
|
available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is not a complete list of available evaluators, but only a few projects
|
|
|
|
|
which are used these days and can be an inspiration for our project. Each
|
|
|
|
|
project from the list has a brief description and some key features mentioned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Progtest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Progtest](https://progtest.fit.cvut.cz/) is private project of [FIT
|
|
|
|
|
ČVUT](https://fit.cvut.cz) in Prague. As far as we know it is used for C/C++,
|
|
|
|
|
Bash programming and knowledge-based quizzes. There are several bonus points
|
|
|
|
|
and penalties and also a few hints what is failing in the submitted solution. It
|
|
|
|
|
is very strict on source code quality, for example `-pedantic` option of GCC,
|
|
|
|
|
Valgrind for memory leaks or array boundaries checks via `mudflap` library.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Codility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Codility](https://codility.com/) is a web based solution primary targeted to
|
|
|
|
|
company recruiters. It is a commercial product available as a SaaS and it
|
|
|
|
|
supports 16 programming languages. The
|
|
|
|
|
[UI](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_isqWtuEvvY/U8_SbkUMP-I/AAAAAAAAAL0/Hup_amNYU2s/s1600/cui.png)
|
|
|
|
|
of Codility is [opensource](https://github.com/Codility/cui), the rest of source
|
|
|
|
|
code is not available. One interesting feature is 'task timeline' -- captured
|
|
|
|
|
progress of writing code for each user.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### CMS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[CMS](http://cms-dev.github.io/index.html) is an opensource distributed system
|
|
|
|
|
for running and organizing programming contests. It is written in Python and
|
|
|
|
|
contains several modules. CMS supports C/C++, Pascal, Python, PHP, and Java
|
|
|
|
|
programming languages. PostgreSQL is a single point of failure, all modules
|
|
|
|
|
heavily depend on the database connection. Task evaluation can be only a three
|
|
|
|
|
step pipeline -- compilation, execution, evaluation. Execution is performed in
|
|
|
|
|
[Isolate](https://github.com/ioi/isolate), sandbox written by the consultant
|
|
|
|
|
of our project, Mgr. Martin Mareš, Ph.D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### MOE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[MOE](http://www.ucw.cz/moe/) is a grading system written in Shell scripts, C
|
|
|
|
|
and Python. It does not provide a default GUI interface, all actions have to be
|
|
|
|
|
performed from command line. The system does not evaluate submissions in real
|
|
|
|
|
time, results are computed in batch mode after exercise deadline, using Isolate
|
|
|
|
|
for sandboxing. Parts of MOE are used in other systems like CodEx or CMS, but
|
|
|
|
|
the system is generally obsolete.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Kattis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Kattis](http://www.kattis.com/) is another SaaS solution. It provides a clean
|
|
|
|
|
and functional web UI, but the rest of the application is too simple. A nice
|
|
|
|
|
feature is the usage of a [standardized
|
|
|
|
|
format](http://www.problemarchive.org/wiki/index.php/Problem_Format) for
|
|
|
|
|
exercises. Kattis is primarily used by programming contest organizers, company
|
|
|
|
|
recruiters and also some universities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Analysis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
None of the existing projects we came across fulfills all the requested features
|
|
|
|
|
for the new system. There is no grading system which supports arbitrary-length
|
|
|
|
|
evaluation pipeline, so we have to implement this feature ourselves, cautiously
|
|
|
|
|
treading through unexplored fields. Also, no existing solution is extensible
|
|
|
|
|
enough to be used as a base for the new system. After considering all these
|
|
|
|
|
facts, it is clear that a new system has to be written from scratch. This
|
|
|
|
|
implies that only a subset of all the features will be implemented in the first
|
|
|
|
|
version, and more of them will come in the following releases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gathered features are categorized based on priorities for the whole system. The
|
|
|
|
|
highest priority is the functionality present in current CodEx. It is a base
|
|
|
|
|
line for being useful in production environment. The design of the new solution
|
|
|
|
|
shall allow extending the system easily. Ideas from faculty staff have secondary
|
|
|
|
|
priority, but most of them will be implemented as part of the project. The most
|
|
|
|
|
complicated tasks from this category are advanced low-level evaluation
|
|
|
|
|
configuration format, using modern tools, connecting to a university systems and
|
|
|
|
|
merging separate system instances into a single one. Other tasks are scheduled
|
|
|
|
|
for next releases after the project is successfully defended. Namely, these are
|
|
|
|
|
high-level exercise evaluation configuration with a user-friendly interface for
|
|
|
|
|
common exercise types, SIS integration (when a public API becomes available for
|
|
|
|
|
the system) and a command-line submission tool. Plagiarism detection is not
|
|
|
|
|
likely to be part of any release in near future unless someone else implements a
|
|
|
|
|
sufficiently capable and extendable engine -- this problem is too complex to be
|
|
|
|
|
solved as a part of this project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We named the new project **ReCodEx -- ReCodEx Code Examiner**. The name
|
|
|
|
|
should point to the old CodEx, but also reflect the new approach to solve
|
|
|
|
|
issues. **Re** as part of the name means redesigned, rewritten, renewed, or
|
|
|
|
|
restarted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At this point there is a clear idea how the new system will be used and what are
|
|
|
|
|
the major enhancements for future releases. With this in mind, the overall
|
|
|
|
|
architecture can be sketched. To sum up, here is a list of key features of the
|
|
|
|
|
new system. They come from previous research of current system's drawbacks,
|
|
|
|
|
reasonable wishes of university users and our major design choices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- modern HTML5 web frontend written in JavaScript using a suitable framework
|
|
|
|
|
- REST API communicating with database, evaluation backend and a file server
|
|
|
|
|
- evaluation backend implemented as a distributed system on top of a messaging
|
|
|
|
|
framework with master-worker architecture
|
|
|
|
|
- multi-platform worker supporting Linux and Windows environment (latter without
|
|
|
|
|
sandbox, no general purpose suitable tool available yet)
|
|
|
|
|
- evaluation procedure configured in a human readable text file, compound of
|
|
|
|
|
small tasks connected into an arbitrary oriented acyclic graph
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reasons supporting these decisions are explained in the rest of analysis
|
|
|
|
|
chapter. Also a lot of smaller design choices are mentioned including possible
|
|
|
|
|
options, what is picked to implement and why. But first, we discuss basic
|
|
|
|
|
concepts of the system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Basic concepts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The system is designed as a web application. The requirements say that the user
|
|
|
|
|
interface must be accessible for students without the need to install additional
|
|
|
|
|
software. This immediately implies that users have to be connected to the
|
|
|
|
|
internet, so it is used as communication medium. Today, there are two main ways
|
|
|
|
|
of designing graphical user interfaces -- as a native application or a web page.
|
|
|
|
|
Creating a user-friendly and multi-platform application with graphical interface
|
|
|
|
|
is almost impossible because of the large number of different environments.
|
|
|
|
|
Also, these applications typically require installation or at least downloading
|
|
|
|
|
its files (sources or binaries). On the other hand, distributing a web
|
|
|
|
|
application is easier, because every personal computer has an internet browser
|
|
|
|
|
installed. Also, browsers support a (mostly) unified and standardized
|
|
|
|
|
environment of HTML5 and JavaScript. CodEx is also a web application and
|
|
|
|
|
everybody seems satisfied with this fact. There are other communicating channels
|
|
|
|
|
most programmers use, such as e-mail or git, but they are inappropriate for
|
|
|
|
|
designing user interfaces on top of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The application interacts with users. From the project assignment it is clear,
|
|
|
|
|
that the system has to keep personalized data about users and adapt presented
|
|
|
|
|
content according to this knowledge. User data cannot be publicly visible, which
|
|
|
|
|
implies necessity of user authentication. The application also has to support
|
|
|
|
|
multiple ways of authentication (university authentication systems, a company
|
|
|
|
|
LDAP server, an OAuth server...) and permit adding more security measures in the
|
|
|
|
|
future, such as two-factor authentication.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User data also include a privilege level. From the assignment it is required to
|
|
|
|
|
have at least two roles, _student_ and _supervisor_. However, it is wise to add
|
|
|
|
|
_administrator_ level for users who take care of the system as a whole and is
|
|
|
|
|
responsible for core setup, monitoring, updates and so on. Student role has the
|
|
|
|
|
least power, basically can just view assignments and submit solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
Supervisors have more authority, so they can create exercises and assignments,
|
|
|
|
|
view results of students etc. From the university organization, one possible
|
|
|
|
|
level could be introduced, _course guarantor_. However, from real experience all
|
|
|
|
|
duties related with lecturing of labs are already associated with supervisors,
|
|
|
|
|
so this role does not seem useful. In addition, no one requested more than three
|
|
|
|
|
level privilege scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
School labs are lessons for some students lead by supervisors. All students ina
|
|
|
|
|
lab have the same homework and supervisors evaluate their solutions. This
|
|
|
|
|
organization has to be carried over into the new system. Virtual groups are a
|
|
|
|
|
counterpart to real-life labs. This concept was already discussed in the
|
|
|
|
|
previous chapter including the need for a hierarchical structure of groups. Only
|
|
|
|
|
students of the university recorded in the university information system have a
|
|
|
|
|
right to attend labs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To allow restriction of group members in ReCodEx, there are two types of groups
|
|
|
|
|
-- _public_ and _private_. Public groups are open for all registered users, but
|
|
|
|
|
to become a member of private group, one of its supervisors have to add the
|
|
|
|
|
user. This could be done automatically at the beginning of the term with data
|
|
|
|
|
from information system, but unfortunately there is no API for this yet.
|
|
|
|
|
However, creating this API is now being considered by university staff. Another
|
|
|
|
|
just as good solution for restricting membership of a group is to allow anyone
|
|
|
|
|
join the group with supplementary confirmation of supervisors. It has no
|
|
|
|
|
additional benefits, so approach with public and private groups is implemented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supervisors using CodEx in their labs usually set minimum amount of points
|
|
|
|
|
required to get a credit. These points can be acquired by solving assigned
|
|
|
|
|
exercises. To show users whether they already have enough points, ReCodEx also
|
|
|
|
|
supports setting this limit for individual groups. There are two equal ways how
|
|
|
|
|
to set a limit -- absolute value or relative value to maximum. The latter way
|
|
|
|
|
seems nicer, so it is implemented. The relative value is set in percents and is
|
|
|
|
|
called threshold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our university has a few partner grammar schools. There was an idea, that they
|
|
|
|
|
could use CodEx for teaching informatics classes. To make the setup simple for
|
|
|
|
|
them, all the software and hardware would be provided by the university as a
|
|
|
|
|
completely ready-to-use remote service. However, CodEx is not prepared for this
|
|
|
|
|
kind of usage and no one has the time to manage a separate instance. With
|
|
|
|
|
ReCodEx it is possible to offer hosted environment as a service to other
|
|
|
|
|
subjects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The concept we came up with is based on user and group separation inside the
|
|
|
|
|
system. There are multiple _instances_ in the system, which means unit of
|
|
|
|
|
separation. Each instance has own set of users and groups, exercises can be
|
|
|
|
|
optionally shared. Evaluation backend is common for all instances. To keep track
|
|
|
|
|
of active instances and paying customers, each instance must have a valid
|
|
|
|
|
_licence_ to allow users submit their solutions. licence is granted for defined
|
|
|
|
|
period of time and can be revoked in advance if the subject do not keep approved
|
|
|
|
|
terms and conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The primary task of the system is to evaluate programming exercises. The
|
|
|
|
|
exercise is quite similar to homework assignment during school labs. When a
|
|
|
|
|
homework is assigned, two things are important to know for users:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- description of the problem
|
|
|
|
|
- metadata -- when and whom to submit solutions, grading scale, penalties, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To reflect this idea teachers and students are already familiar with, we decided
|
|
|
|
|
to keep separation between problem itself (_exercise_) and its _assignment_.
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise only describes one problem and provides testing data with description
|
|
|
|
|
of how to evaluate it. In fact, it is template for assignments. Assignment then
|
|
|
|
|
contains data from its exercise and additional metadata, which can be different
|
|
|
|
|
for every assignment of the same exercise. This separation is natural for all
|
|
|
|
|
users, in CodEx it is implemented in similar way and no other considerable
|
|
|
|
|
solution was found.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Evaluation unit executed by ReCodEx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the bigger requests for the new system is to support a complex
|
|
|
|
|
configuration of execution pipeline. The idea comes from lecturers of Compiler
|
|
|
|
|
principles class who want to migrate their semi-manual evaluation process to
|
|
|
|
|
CodEx. Unfortunately, CodEx is not capable of such complicated exercise setup.
|
|
|
|
|
None of evaluation systems we found can handle such task, so design from
|
|
|
|
|
scratch is needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are two main approaches to design a complex execution configuration. It
|
|
|
|
|
can be composed of small amount of relatively big components or much more small
|
|
|
|
|
tasks. Big components are easy to write and whole configuration is reasonably
|
|
|
|
|
small. The components are designed for current problems, so it is not scalable
|
|
|
|
|
enough for pleasant future usage. This can be solved by introducing small set of
|
|
|
|
|
single-purposed tasks which can be composed together. The whole configuration is
|
|
|
|
|
then quite bigger, but with great adaptation ability for new conditions and also
|
|
|
|
|
less amount of work programming them. For better user experience, configuration
|
|
|
|
|
generators for some common cases can be introduced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ReCodEx target is to be continuously developed and used for many years, so the
|
|
|
|
|
smaller tasks are the right choice. Observation of CodEx system shows that
|
|
|
|
|
only a few tasks are needed. In extreme case, only one task is enough -- execute
|
|
|
|
|
a binary. However, for better portability of configurations along different
|
|
|
|
|
systems it is better to implement reasonable subset of operations directly
|
|
|
|
|
without calling system provided binaries. These operations are copy file, create
|
|
|
|
|
new directory, extract archive and so on, altogether called internal tasks.
|
|
|
|
|
Another benefit from custom implementation of these tasks is guarantied safety,
|
|
|
|
|
so no sandbox needs to be used as in external tasks case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For a job evaluation, the tasks needs to be executed sequentially in a specified
|
|
|
|
|
order. The idea of running independent tasks in parallel is bad because exact
|
|
|
|
|
time measurement needs controlled environment on target computer with
|
|
|
|
|
minimization of interrupts by other processes. It would be possible to run tasks
|
|
|
|
|
which does not need exact time measuremet in parallel, but in this case a
|
|
|
|
|
synchronization mechanism has to be developed to exclude paralellism for
|
|
|
|
|
measured tasks. Usually, there are about four times more unmeasured tasks than
|
|
|
|
|
tasks with time measurement, but measured tasks tends to be much longer. With
|
|
|
|
|
[Amdahl's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law) in mind, the
|
|
|
|
|
parallelism seems not to provide a huge benefit in overall execution speed and
|
|
|
|
|
brings troubles with synchronization. However, it there will be speed issues,
|
|
|
|
|
this approach could be reconsiderred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that connecting tasks into directed acyclic graph (DAG) can handle all
|
|
|
|
|
possible problem cases. None of the authors, supervisors and involved faculty
|
|
|
|
|
staff can think of a problem that cannot be decomposed into tasks connected in a
|
|
|
|
|
DAG. The goal of evaluation is to satisfy as many tasks as possible. During
|
|
|
|
|
execution there are sometimes multiple choices of next task. To control that,
|
|
|
|
|
each task can have a priority, which is used as a secondary ordering criterion.
|
|
|
|
|
For better understanding, here is a small example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Task serialization](https://github.com/ReCodEx/wiki/raw/master/images/Assignment_overview.png)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The _job root_ task is imaginary single starting point of each job. When the
|
|
|
|
|
_CompileA_ task is finished, the _RunAA_ task is started (or _RunAB_, but should
|
|
|
|
|
be deterministic by position in configuration file -- tasks stated earlier
|
|
|
|
|
should be executed earlier). The task priorities guaranties, that after
|
|
|
|
|
_CompileA_ task all dependent tasks are executed before _CompileB_ task (they
|
|
|
|
|
have higher priority number). To sum up, connection of tasks represents
|
|
|
|
|
dependencies and priorities can be used to order unrelated tasks and with this
|
|
|
|
|
provide a total ordering of them. For well written jobs the priorities may not
|
|
|
|
|
be so useful, but they can help control execution order for example to avoid
|
|
|
|
|
situation, where each test of the job generates large temporary file and there
|
|
|
|
|
is a one valid execution order which keeps all the temporary files for later
|
|
|
|
|
processing at one time. Better approach is to finish execution of one test,
|
|
|
|
|
clean the big temporary file and proceed with following test. If there is an
|
|
|
|
|
ambiguity in task ordering at this point, they are executed in order of input
|
|
|
|
|
task configuration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The total linear ordering of tasks can be done easier with just executing them
|
|
|
|
|
in order of input configuration. But this structure cannot handle well cases,
|
|
|
|
|
when a task fails. There is not a easy and nice way how to tell which task
|
|
|
|
|
should be executed next. However, this issue can be solved with graph structured
|
|
|
|
|
dependencies of the tasks. In graph structure, it is clear that all dependent
|
|
|
|
|
tasks has to be skipped and continue execution with a non related task. This is
|
|
|
|
|
the main reason, why the tasks are connected in a DAG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For grading there are several important tasks. First, tasks executing submitted
|
|
|
|
|
code need to be checked for time and memory limits. Second, outputs of judging
|
|
|
|
|
tasks need to be checked for correctness (represented by return value or by data
|
|
|
|
|
on standard output) and should not fail. This division can be transparent for
|
|
|
|
|
backend, each task is executed the same way. But frontend must know which tasks
|
|
|
|
|
from whole job are important and what is their kind. It is reasonable, to keep
|
|
|
|
|
this piece of information alongside the tasks in job configuration, so each task
|
|
|
|
|
can have a label about its purpose. Unlabeled tasks have an internal type
|
|
|
|
|
_inner_. There are four categories of tasks:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- _initiation_ -- setting up the environment, compiling code, etc.; for users
|
|
|
|
|
failure means error in their sources which are not compatible with running it
|
|
|
|
|
with examination data
|
|
|
|
|
- _execution_ -- running the user code with examination data, must not exceed
|
|
|
|
|
time and memory limits; for users failure means wrong design, slow data
|
|
|
|
|
structures, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
- _evaluation_ -- comparing user and examination outputs; for user failure means
|
|
|
|
|
that the program does not compute the right results
|
|
|
|
|
- _inner_ -- no special meaning for frontend, technical tasks for fetching and
|
|
|
|
|
copying files, creating directories, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each job is composed of multiple tasks of these types which are semantically
|
|
|
|
|
grouped into tests. A test can represent one set of examination data for user
|
|
|
|
|
code. To mark the grouping, another task label can be used. Each test must have
|
|
|
|
|
exactly one _evaluation_ task (to show success or failure to users) and
|
|
|
|
|
arbitrary number of tasks with other types.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Evaluation progress state
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Users want to know the state of their submitted solution (whether it's waiting
|
|
|
|
|
in a queue, compiling, etc.). The very first idea would be to report a state
|
|
|
|
|
based on "done" messages from compilation, execution and evaluation like many
|
|
|
|
|
evaluation systems are already providing. However ReCodEx has a more complicated
|
|
|
|
|
execution pipeline where there can be more compilation or execution tasks per
|
|
|
|
|
test and also other internal tasks that control the job execution flow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The users do not know the technical details of the evaluation and data about
|
|
|
|
|
completion of tasks may confuse them. A solution is to show users only
|
|
|
|
|
percentual completion of the job without any additional information about task
|
|
|
|
|
types. This solution works well for all of the jobs and is very user friendly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is possible to expand upon this by adding a special "send progress message"
|
|
|
|
|
task to the job configuration that would mark the completion of a specific part
|
|
|
|
|
of the evaluation. However, the benefits of this feature are not worth the
|
|
|
|
|
effort of implementing it and unnecessarily complicating the job configuration
|
|
|
|
|
files.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Results of evaluation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The evaluation data have to be processed and then presented in human readable
|
|
|
|
|
form. This is done through a one numeric value called points. Also, results of
|
|
|
|
|
job tests should be available to know what kind of error is in the solution. For
|
|
|
|
|
more debugging, outputs of tasks could be optionally available for the users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Scoring and assigning points
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The overall concept of grading solutions was presented earlier. To briefly
|
|
|
|
|
remind that, backend returns only exact measured values (used time and memory,
|
|
|
|
|
return code of the judging task, ...) and on top of that one value is computed.
|
|
|
|
|
The way of this computation can be very different across supervisors, so it has
|
|
|
|
|
to be easily extendable. The best way is to provide interface, which can be
|
|
|
|
|
implemented and any sort of magic can return the final value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We found out several computational possibilities. There is basic arithmetic,
|
|
|
|
|
weighted arithmetic, geometric and harmonic mean of results of each test (the
|
|
|
|
|
result is logical value succeeded/failed, optionally with weight), some kind of
|
|
|
|
|
interpolation of used amount of time for each test, the same with used memory
|
|
|
|
|
amount and surely many others. To keep the project simple, we decided to design
|
|
|
|
|
appropriate interface and implement only weighted arithmetic mean computation,
|
|
|
|
|
which is used in about 90% of all assignments. Of course, different scheme can
|
|
|
|
|
be chosen for every assignment and also can be configured -- for example
|
|
|
|
|
specifying test weights for implemented weighted arithmetic mean. Advanced ways
|
|
|
|
|
of computation can be implemented on demand when there is a real demand for
|
|
|
|
|
them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To avoid assigning points for insufficient solutions (like only printing "File
|
|
|
|
|
error" which is the valid answer in two tests), a minimal point threshold can be
|
|
|
|
|
specified. It the solution is to get less points than specified, it will get
|
|
|
|
|
zero points instead. This functionality can be embedded into grading computation
|
|
|
|
|
algoritm itself, but it would have to be present in each implementation
|
|
|
|
|
separately, which is not maintainable. Because of this the the threshold feature
|
|
|
|
|
is separated from point computation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Automatic grading cannot reflect all aspects of submitted code. For example,
|
|
|
|
|
structuring the code, number and quality of comments and so on. To allow
|
|
|
|
|
supervisors bring these manually checked things into grading, there is a concept
|
|
|
|
|
of bonus points. They can be positive or negative. Generally the solution with
|
|
|
|
|
the most assigned points is marked for grading that particular assignment.
|
|
|
|
|
However, if supervisor is not satisfied with student solution (really bad code,
|
|
|
|
|
cheating, ...) he/she assigns the student negative bonus points. To prevent
|
|
|
|
|
overriding this decision by system choosing another solution with more points or
|
|
|
|
|
even student submitting the same code again which evaluates to more points,
|
|
|
|
|
supervisor can mark a particular solution as marked and used for grading instead
|
|
|
|
|
of solution with the most points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Evaluation outputs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to the exact measured values used for score calculation described in
|
|
|
|
|
previous chapter, there are also text or binary outputs of the executed tasks.
|
|
|
|
|
Knowing them helps users identify and solve their potential issues, but on the
|
|
|
|
|
other hand this can lead to possibility of leaking input data. This may lead
|
|
|
|
|
students to hack their solutions to pass just the ReCodEx testing cases instead
|
|
|
|
|
of properly solving the assigned problem. The usual approach is to keep these
|
|
|
|
|
information private and so does strongly recommended Martin Mareš, who has
|
|
|
|
|
experience with several programming contests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only one exception of hiding the logs are compilation outputs, which can
|
|
|
|
|
help students a lot during troubleshooting and there is only small possibility
|
|
|
|
|
of input data leakage. The supervisors have access to all of the logs and they
|
|
|
|
|
can decide if students are allowed to see the compilation outputs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note, that due to lack of frontend developers, showing compilation logs to the
|
|
|
|
|
students is not implemented in the very first release of ReCodEx.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Persistence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous parts of analysis show that the system has to keep some state. This
|
|
|
|
|
could be user settings, group membership, evaluated assignments and so on. The
|
|
|
|
|
data have to be kept across restart, so persistence is important decision
|
|
|
|
|
factor. There are several ways how to save structured data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- plain files
|
|
|
|
|
- NoSQL database
|
|
|
|
|
- relational database
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another important factor is amount and size of stored data. Our guess is about
|
|
|
|
|
1000 users, 100 exercises, 200 assignments per year and 200000 unique solutions
|
|
|
|
|
per year. The data are mostly structured and there are a lot of them with the
|
|
|
|
|
same format. For example, there is a thousand of users and each one has the same
|
|
|
|
|
values -- name, email, age, etc. These kind of data are relatively small, name
|
|
|
|
|
and email are short strings, age is an integer. Considering this, relational
|
|
|
|
|
databases or formatted plain files (CSV for example) fits best for them.
|
|
|
|
|
However, the data often have to support find operation, so they have to be
|
|
|
|
|
sorted and allow random access for resolving cross references. Also, addition a
|
|
|
|
|
deletion of entries should take reasonable time (at most logarithmic time
|
|
|
|
|
complexity to number of saved values). This practically excludes plain files, so
|
|
|
|
|
relational database is used instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the other hand, there are some data with no such great structure and much
|
|
|
|
|
larger size. These can be evaluation logs, sample input files for exercises or
|
|
|
|
|
submitted sources by students. Saving this kind of data into relational database
|
|
|
|
|
is not suitable, but it is better to keep them as ordinary files or store them
|
|
|
|
|
into some kind of NoSQL database. Since they are already files and does not need
|
|
|
|
|
to be backed up in multiple copies, it is easier to keep them as ordinary files
|
|
|
|
|
in filesystem. Also, this solution is more lightweight and does not require
|
|
|
|
|
additional dependencies on third-party software. File can be identified using
|
|
|
|
|
its filesystem path or unique index stored as value in relational database. Both
|
|
|
|
|
approaches are equally good, final decision depends on actual case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Structure of the project
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ReCodEx project is divided into two logical parts -- the *backend* and the
|
|
|
|
|
*frontend* -- which interact with each other and together cover the whole area
|
|
|
|
|
of code examination. Both of these logical parts are independent of each other
|
|
|
|
|
in the sense of being installed on separate machines at different locations and
|
|
|
|
|
that one of the parts can be replaced with a different implementation and as
|
|
|
|
|
long as the communication protocols are preserved, the system will continue
|
|
|
|
|
working as expected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Backend
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Backend is the part which is responsible solely for the process of evaluation
|
|
|
|
|
a solution of an exercise. Each evaluation of a solution is referred to as a
|
|
|
|
|
*job*. For each job, the system expects a configuration document of the job,
|
|
|
|
|
supplementary files for the exercise (e.g., test inputs, expected outputs,
|
|
|
|
|
predefined header files), and the solution of the exercise (typically source
|
|
|
|
|
codes created by a student). There might be some specific requirements for the
|
|
|
|
|
job, such as a specific runtime environment, specific version of a compiler or
|
|
|
|
|
the job must be evaluated on a processor with a specific number of cores. The
|
|
|
|
|
backend infrastructure decides whether it will accept a job or decline it based
|
|
|
|
|
on the specified requirements. In case it accepts the job, it will be placed in
|
|
|
|
|
a queue and it will be processed as soon as possible. The backend publishes the
|
|
|
|
|
progress of processing of the queued jobs and the results of the evaluations can
|
|
|
|
|
be queried after the job processing is finished. The backend produces a log of
|
|
|
|
|
the evaluation which can be used for further score calculation or debugging.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To make the backend scalable, there are two necessary components -- the one
|
|
|
|
|
which will execute jobs and the other which will distribute jobs to the
|
|
|
|
|
instances of the first one. This ensures scalability in manner of parallel
|
|
|
|
|
execution of numerous jobs. Implementation of these services are called
|
|
|
|
|
**broker** and **worker**, the first one handles distribution, the latter one
|
|
|
|
|
execution. These components could handle the whole evaluation process, but for
|
|
|
|
|
cleaner design and better communication gateways with frontend two other
|
|
|
|
|
components were added, **fileserver** and **monitor**. Fileserver is simple
|
|
|
|
|
component whose purpose is to store files which are exchanged between frontend
|
|
|
|
|
and backend. Monitor is a simple service which is able to serve job progress
|
|
|
|
|
state from worker to web application. These two additional components are on
|
|
|
|
|
the edge of frontend and backend (like gateways) but logically they are more
|
|
|
|
|
connected with backend, so it is considered they belong there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Frontend
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frontend on the other hand is responsible for providing users a convenient
|
|
|
|
|
access to the backend infrastructure and interpreting raw data from backend
|
|
|
|
|
evaluation. There are two main purposes of frontend -- holding the state of
|
|
|
|
|
whole system (database of users, exercises, solutions, points, etc.) and
|
|
|
|
|
presenting the state to users through some kind of an user interface (e.g., a
|
|
|
|
|
web application, mobile application, or a command-line tool). According to
|
|
|
|
|
contemporary trends in development of frontend parts of applications, we
|
|
|
|
|
decided to split the frontend in two logical parts -- a server side and a
|
|
|
|
|
client side. The server side is responsible for managing the state and the
|
|
|
|
|
client side gives instructions to the server side based on the inputs from the
|
|
|
|
|
user. This decoupling gives us the ability to create multiple client side tools
|
|
|
|
|
which may address different needs of the users with preserving single server
|
|
|
|
|
side component.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The frontend developed as part of this project is a web application created with
|
|
|
|
|
the needs of the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics of the Charles university in
|
|
|
|
|
Prague in mind. The users are the students and their teachers, groups correspond
|
|
|
|
|
to the different courses, the teachers are the supervisors of these groups. This
|
|
|
|
|
model is applicable to the needs of other universities, schools, and IT
|
|
|
|
|
companies, which can use the same system for their needs. It is also possible to
|
|
|
|
|
develop a custom frontend with own user management system and use the
|
|
|
|
|
possibilities of the backend without any changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Possible connection
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One possible configuration of ReCodEx system is illustrated on following
|
|
|
|
|
picture, where there is one shared backend with three workers and two separate
|
|
|
|
|
instances of whole frontend. This configuration may be suitable for MFF UK --
|
|
|
|
|
basic programming course and KSP competition. But maybe even sharing web API and
|
|
|
|
|
fileserver with only custom instances of client (web app or own implementation)
|
|
|
|
|
is more likely to be used. Note, that connections between components are not
|
|
|
|
|
fully accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Overall architecture](https://github.com/ReCodEx/wiki/blob/master/images/Overall_Architecture.png)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the latter parts of the documentation, both of the backend and frontend parts
|
|
|
|
|
will be introduced separately and covered in more detail. The communication
|
|
|
|
|
protocol between these two logical parts will be described as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Implementation analysis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some of the most important implementation problems or interesting observations
|
|
|
|
|
will be discussed in this chapter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Communication between the backend components
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall design of the project is discussed above. There are bunch of components
|
|
|
|
|
with their own responsibility. Important thing to design is communication of
|
|
|
|
|
these components. To choose a suitable protocol, there are some additional
|
|
|
|
|
requirements that should be met:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- reliability -- if a message is sent between components, the protocol has to
|
|
|
|
|
ensure that it is received by target component
|
|
|
|
|
- working over IP protocol
|
|
|
|
|
- multi-platform and multi-language usage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TCP/IP protocol meets these conditions, however it is quite low level and
|
|
|
|
|
working with it usually requires working with platform dependent non-object API.
|
|
|
|
|
Often way to reflect these reproaches is to use some framework which provides
|
|
|
|
|
better abstraction and more suitable API. We decided to go this way, so the
|
|
|
|
|
following options are considered:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- CORBA (or some other form of RPC) -- CORBA is a well known framework for
|
|
|
|
|
remote procedure calls. There are multiple implementations for almost every
|
|
|
|
|
known programming language. It fits nicely into object oriented programming
|
|
|
|
|
environment.
|
|
|
|
|
- RabbitMQ -- RabbitMQ is a messaging framework written in Erlang. It features a
|
|
|
|
|
message broker, to which nodes connect and declare the message queues they
|
|
|
|
|
work with. It is also capable of routing requests, which could be a useful
|
|
|
|
|
feature for job load-balancing. Bindings exist for a large number of languages
|
|
|
|
|
and there is a large community supporting the project.
|
|
|
|
|
- ZeroMQ -- ZeroMQ is another messaging framework, which is different from
|
|
|
|
|
RabbitMQ and others (such as ActiveMQ) because it features a "brokerless
|
|
|
|
|
design". This means there is no need to launch a message broker service to
|
|
|
|
|
which clients have to connect -- ZeroMQ based clients are capable of
|
|
|
|
|
communicating directly. However, it only provides an interface for passing
|
|
|
|
|
messages (basically vectors of 255B strings) and any additional features such
|
|
|
|
|
as load balancing or acknowledgement schemes have to be implemented on top of
|
|
|
|
|
this. The ZeroMQ library is written in C++ with a huge number of bindings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CORBA is a large framework that would satisfy all our needs, but we are aiming
|
|
|
|
|
towards a more loosely-coupled system, and asynchronous messaging seems better
|
|
|
|
|
for this approach than RPC. Moreover, we rarely need to receive replies to our
|
|
|
|
|
requests immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RabbitMQ seems well suited for many use cases, but implementing a job routing
|
|
|
|
|
mechanism between heterogenous workers would be complicated -- we would probably
|
|
|
|
|
have to create a separate load balancing service, which cancels the advantage of
|
|
|
|
|
a message broker already being provided by the framework. It is also written in
|
|
|
|
|
Erlang, which nobody from our team understands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ZeroMQ is the best option for us, even with the drawback of having to implement
|
|
|
|
|
a load balancer ourselves (which could also be seen as a benefit and there is a
|
|
|
|
|
notable chance we would have to do the same with RabbitMQ). It also gives us
|
|
|
|
|
complete control over the transmitted messages and communication patterns.
|
|
|
|
|
However, all of the three options would have been possible to use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### File transfers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There has to be a way to access files stored on the fileserver from both worker
|
|
|
|
|
and frontend server machines. The protocol used for this should handle large
|
|
|
|
|
files efficiently and be resilient to network failures. Security features are
|
|
|
|
|
not a primary concern, because all communication with the fileserver will happen
|
|
|
|
|
in an internal network. However, a basic form of authentication can be useful to
|
|
|
|
|
ensure correct configuration (if a development fileserver uses different
|
|
|
|
|
credentials than production, production workers will not be able to use it by
|
|
|
|
|
accident). Lastly, the protocol must have a client library for platforms
|
|
|
|
|
(languages) used in the backend. We will present some of the possible options:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- HTTP(S) -- a de-facto standard for web communication that has far more
|
|
|
|
|
features than just file transfers. Thanks to being used on the web, a large
|
|
|
|
|
effort has been put into the development of its servers. It supports
|
|
|
|
|
authentication and it can handle short-term network failures (thanks to being
|
|
|
|
|
built on TCP and supporting resuming interrupted transfers). We will use HTTP
|
|
|
|
|
for communication with clients, so there is no added cost in maintaining a
|
|
|
|
|
server. HTTP requests can be made using libcurl.
|
|
|
|
|
- FTP -- an old protocol designed only for transferring files. It has all the
|
|
|
|
|
required features, but doesn't offer anything over HTTP. It is also supported
|
|
|
|
|
by libcurl.
|
|
|
|
|
- SFTP -- a file transfer protocol most frequently used as a subsystem of the
|
|
|
|
|
SSH protocol implementations. It doesn't provide authentication, but it
|
|
|
|
|
supports working with large files and resuming failed transfers. The libcurl
|
|
|
|
|
library supports SFTP.
|
|
|
|
|
- A network-shared file system (such as NFS) -- an obvious advantage of a
|
|
|
|
|
network-shared file system is that applications can work with remote files the
|
|
|
|
|
same way they would with local files. However, it brings an overhead for the
|
|
|
|
|
administrator, who has to configure access to this filesystem for every
|
|
|
|
|
machine that needs to access the storage.
|
|
|
|
|
- A custom protocol over ZeroMQ -- it is possible to design a custom file
|
|
|
|
|
transfer protocol that uses ZeroMQ for sending data, but it is not a trivial
|
|
|
|
|
task -- we would have to find a way to transfer large files efficiently,
|
|
|
|
|
implement an acknowledgement scheme and support resuming transfers. Using
|
|
|
|
|
ZeroMQ as the underlying layer does not help a lot with this. The sole
|
|
|
|
|
advantage of this is that the backend components would not need another
|
|
|
|
|
library for communication.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We chose HTTPS because it is widely used and client libraries exist in all
|
|
|
|
|
relevant environments. In addition, it is highly probable we will have to run an
|
|
|
|
|
HTTP server, because it is intended for ReCodEx to have a web frontend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Frontend - backend communication
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our choices when considering how clients will communicate with the backend have
|
|
|
|
|
to stem from the fact that ReCodEx should primarily be a web application. This
|
|
|
|
|
rules out ZeroMQ -- while it is very useful for asynchronous communication
|
|
|
|
|
between backend components, it is practically impossible to use it from a web
|
|
|
|
|
browser. There are several other options:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- *WebSockets* -- The WebSocket standard is built on top of TCP. It enables a
|
|
|
|
|
web browser to connect to a server over a TCP socket. WebSockets are
|
|
|
|
|
implemented in recent versions of all modern web browsers and there are
|
|
|
|
|
libraries for several programming languages like Python or JavaScript (running
|
|
|
|
|
in Node.js). Encryption of the communication over a WebSocket is supported as
|
|
|
|
|
a standard.
|
|
|
|
|
- *HTTP protocol* -- The HTTP protocol is a state-less protocol implemented on
|
|
|
|
|
top of the TCP protocol. The communication between the client and server
|
|
|
|
|
consists of a requests sent by the client and responses to these requests sent
|
|
|
|
|
back by the sever. The client can send as many requests as needed and it may
|
|
|
|
|
ignore the responses from the server, but the server must respond only to the
|
|
|
|
|
requests of the client and it cannot initiate communication on its own.
|
|
|
|
|
End-to-end encryption can be achieved easily using SSL (HTTPS).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We chose the HTTP(S) protocol because of the simple implementation in all sorts
|
|
|
|
|
of operating systems and runtime environments on both the client and the server
|
|
|
|
|
side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The API of the server should expose basic CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete)
|
|
|
|
|
operations. There are some options on what kind of messages to send over the
|
|
|
|
|
HTTP:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- SOAP -- a protocol for exchanging XML messages. It is very robust and complex.
|
|
|
|
|
- REST -- is a stateless architecture style, not a protocol or a technology. It
|
|
|
|
|
relies on HTTP (but not necessarily) and its method verbs (e.g., GET, POST,
|
|
|
|
|
PUT, DELETE). It can fully implement the CRUD operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even though there are some other technologies we chose the REST style over the
|
|
|
|
|
HTTP protocol. It is widely used, there are many tools available for development
|
|
|
|
|
and testing, and it is understood by programmers so it should be easy for a new
|
|
|
|
|
developer with some experience in client-side applications to get to know with
|
|
|
|
|
the ReCodEx API and develop a client application.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A high level view of chosen communication protocols in ReCodEx can be seen in
|
|
|
|
|
following image. Red arrows mark connections through ZeroMQ sockets, blue mark
|
|
|
|
|
WebSockets communication and green arrows connect nodes that communicate through
|
|
|
|
|
HTTP(S).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Communication schema](https://github.com/ReCodEx/wiki/raw/master/images/Backend_Connections.png)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Broker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The broker is responsible for keeping track of available workers and
|
|
|
|
|
distributing jobs that it receives from the frontend between them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Worker management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is intended for the broker to be a fixed part of the backend infrastructure
|
|
|
|
|
to which workers connect at will. Thanks to this design, workers can be added
|
|
|
|
|
and removed when necessary (and possibly in an automated fashion), without
|
|
|
|
|
changing the configuration of the broker. An alternative solution would be
|
|
|
|
|
configuring a list of workers before startup, thus making them passive in the
|
|
|
|
|
communication (in the sense that they just wait for incoming jobs instead of
|
|
|
|
|
connecting to the broker). However, this approach comes with a notable
|
|
|
|
|
administration overhead -- in addition to starting a worker, the administrator
|
|
|
|
|
would have to update the worker list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worker management must also take into account the possibility of worker
|
|
|
|
|
disconnection, either because of a network or software failure (or termination).
|
|
|
|
|
A common way to detect such events in distributed systems is to periodically
|
|
|
|
|
send short messages to other nodes and expect a response. When these messages
|
|
|
|
|
stop arriving, we presume that the other node encountered a failure. Both the
|
|
|
|
|
broker and workers can be made responsible for initiating these exchanges and it
|
|
|
|
|
seems that there are no differences stemming from this choice. We decided that
|
|
|
|
|
the workers will be the active party that initiates the exchange.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Scheduling
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jobs should be scheduled in a way that ensures that they will be processed
|
|
|
|
|
without unnecessary waiting. This depends on the fairness of the scheduling
|
|
|
|
|
algorithm (no worker machine should be overloaded).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The design of such scheduling algorithm is complicated by the requirements on
|
|
|
|
|
the diversity of workers -- they can differ in operating systems, available
|
|
|
|
|
software, computing power and many other aspects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We decided to keep the details of connected workers hidden from the frontend,
|
|
|
|
|
which should lead to a better separation of responsibilities and flexibility.
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore, the frontend needs a way of communicating its requirements on the
|
|
|
|
|
machine that processes a job without knowing anything about the available
|
|
|
|
|
workers. A key-value structure is suitable for representing such requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With respect to these constraints, and because the analysis and design of a more
|
|
|
|
|
sophisticated solution was declared out of scope of our project assignment, a
|
|
|
|
|
rather simple scheduling algorithm was chosen. The broker shall maintain a queue
|
|
|
|
|
of available workers. When assigning a job, it traverses this queue and chooses
|
|
|
|
|
the first machine that matches the requirements of the job. This machine is then
|
|
|
|
|
moved to the end of the queue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presented algorithm results in a simple round-robin load balancing strategy,
|
|
|
|
|
which should be sufficient for small-scale deployments (such as a single
|
|
|
|
|
university). However, with a large amount of jobs, some workers will easily
|
|
|
|
|
become overloaded. The implementation must allow for a simple replacement of the
|
|
|
|
|
load balancing strategy so that this problem can be solved in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Forwarding jobs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Information about a job can be divided in two disjoint parts -- what the worker
|
|
|
|
|
needs to know to process it and what the broker needs to forward it to the
|
|
|
|
|
correct worker. It remains to be decided how this information will be
|
|
|
|
|
transferred to its destination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is technically possible to transfer all the data required by the worker at
|
|
|
|
|
once through the broker. This package could contain submitted files, test
|
|
|
|
|
data, requirements on the worker, etc. A drawback of this solution is that
|
|
|
|
|
both submitted files and test data can be rather large. Furthermore, it is
|
|
|
|
|
likely that test data would be transferred many times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because of these facts, we decided to store data required by the worker using a
|
|
|
|
|
shared storage space and only send a link to this data through the broker. This
|
|
|
|
|
approach leads to a more efficient network and resource utilization (the broker
|
|
|
|
|
doesn't have to process data that it doesn't need), but also makes the job
|
|
|
|
|
submission flow more complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Further requirements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The broker can be viewed as a central point of the backend. While it has only
|
|
|
|
|
two primary, closely related responsibilities, other requirements have arisen
|
|
|
|
|
(forwarding messages about job evaluation progress back to the frontend) and
|
|
|
|
|
will arise in the future. To facilitate such requirements, its architecture
|
|
|
|
|
should allow simply adding new communication flows. It should also be as
|
|
|
|
|
asynchronous as possible to enable efficient communication with external
|
|
|
|
|
services, for example via HTTP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Worker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worker is component which is supposed to execute incoming jobs from broker. As
|
|
|
|
|
such worker should work and support wide range of different infrastructures and
|
|
|
|
|
maybe even platforms/operating systems. Support of at least two main operating
|
|
|
|
|
systems is desirable and should be implemented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worker as a service does not have to be much complicated, but a bit of complex
|
|
|
|
|
behaviour is needed. Mentioned complexity is almost exclusively concerned about
|
|
|
|
|
robust communication with broker which has to be regularly checked. Ping
|
|
|
|
|
mechanism is usually used for this in all kind of projects. This means that
|
|
|
|
|
worker should be able to send ping messages even during execution. So worker has
|
|
|
|
|
to be divided into two separate parts, the one which will handle communication
|
|
|
|
|
with broker and the another which will execute jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The easiest solution is to have these parts in separate threads which somehow
|
|
|
|
|
tightly communicates with each other. For inter process communication there can
|
|
|
|
|
be used numerous technologies, from shared memory to condition variables or some
|
|
|
|
|
kind of in-process messages. Already used library ZeroMQ is possible to provide
|
|
|
|
|
in-process messages working on the same principles as network communication
|
|
|
|
|
which is quite handy and solves problems with threads synchronization and such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Evaluation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At this point we have worker with two internal parts listening one and execution
|
|
|
|
|
one. Implementation of first one is quite straightforward and clear. So let us
|
|
|
|
|
discuss what should be happening in execution subsystem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After successful arrival of job, worker has to prepare new execution
|
|
|
|
|
environment, then solution archive has to be downloaded from fileserver and
|
|
|
|
|
extracted. Job configuration is located within these files and loaded into
|
|
|
|
|
internal structures and executed. After that, results are uploaded back to
|
|
|
|
|
fileserver. These steps are the basic ones which are really necessary for whole
|
|
|
|
|
execution and have to be executed in this precise order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Job configuration
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jobs as work units can quite vary and do completely different things, that means
|
|
|
|
|
configuration and worker has to be prepared for this kind of generality.
|
|
|
|
|
Configuration and its solution was already discussed above, implementation in
|
|
|
|
|
worker is then quite also quite straightforward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worker has internal structures to which loads and which stores metadata given in
|
|
|
|
|
configuration. Whole job is mapped to job metadata structure and tasks are
|
|
|
|
|
mapped to either external ones or internal ones (internal commands has to be
|
|
|
|
|
defined within worker), both are different whether they are executed in sandbox
|
|
|
|
|
or as internal worker commands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another division of tasks is by task-type field in configuration. This field can
|
|
|
|
|
have four values: initiation, execution, evaluation and inner. All was discussed
|
|
|
|
|
and described above in configuration analysis. What is important to worker is
|
|
|
|
|
how to behave if execution of task with some particular type fails.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are two possible situations execution fails due to bad user solution or
|
|
|
|
|
due to some internal error. If execution fails on internal error solution cannot
|
|
|
|
|
be declared overly as failed. User should not be punished for bad configuration
|
|
|
|
|
or some network error. This is where task types are useful. Generally
|
|
|
|
|
initiation, execution and evaluation are tasks which are somehow executing code
|
|
|
|
|
which was given by users who submitted solution of exercise. If this kinds of
|
|
|
|
|
tasks fail it is probably connected with bad user solution and can be evaluated.
|
|
|
|
|
But if some inner task fails solution should be re-executed, in best case
|
|
|
|
|
scenario on different worker. That is why if inner task fails it is sent back to
|
|
|
|
|
broker which will reassign job to another worker. More on this subject should be
|
|
|
|
|
discussed in broker assigning algorithms section.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Job working directories
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is also question about working directory or directories of job, which
|
|
|
|
|
directories should be used and what for. There is one simple answer on this
|
|
|
|
|
every job will have only one specified directory which will contain every file
|
|
|
|
|
with which worker will work in the scope of whole job execution. This solution
|
|
|
|
|
is easy but fails due to logical and security reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The least which must be done are two folders one for internal temporary files
|
|
|
|
|
and second one for evaluation. The directory for temporary files is enough to
|
|
|
|
|
comprehend all kind of internal work with filesystem but only one directory for
|
|
|
|
|
whole evaluation is somehow not enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The solution which was chosen at the end is to have folders for downloaded
|
|
|
|
|
archive, decompressed solution, evaluation directory in which user solution is
|
|
|
|
|
executed and then folders for temporary files and for results and generally
|
|
|
|
|
files which should be uploaded back to fileserver with solution results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There has to be also hierarchy which separate folders from different workers on
|
|
|
|
|
the same machines. That is why paths to directories are in format:
|
|
|
|
|
`${DEFAULT}/${FOLDER}/${WORKER_ID}/${JOB_ID}` where default means default
|
|
|
|
|
working directory of whole worker, folder is particular directory for some
|
|
|
|
|
purpose (archives, evaluation, ...).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mentioned division of job directories proved to be flexible and detailed enough,
|
|
|
|
|
everything is in logical units and where it is supposed to be which means that
|
|
|
|
|
searching through this system should be easy. In addition if solutions of users
|
|
|
|
|
have access only to evaluation directory then they do not have access to
|
|
|
|
|
unnecessary files which is better for overall security of whole ReCodEx.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Job variables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As mentioned above worker has job directories but users who are writing and
|
|
|
|
|
managing job configurations do not know where they are (on some particular
|
|
|
|
|
worker) and how they can be accessed and written into configuration. For this
|
|
|
|
|
kind of task we have to introduce some kind of marks or signs which will
|
|
|
|
|
represent particular folders. Marks or signs can have form broadly used
|
|
|
|
|
variables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variables can be used everywhere where filesystem paths are used within
|
|
|
|
|
configuration file. This will solve problem with specific worker environment and
|
|
|
|
|
specific hierarchy of directories. Final form of variables is `${...}` where
|
|
|
|
|
triple dot is textual description. This format was used because of special
|
|
|
|
|
dollar sign character which cannot be used within filesystem path, braces are
|
|
|
|
|
there only to border textual description of variable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Supplementary files
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting problem is with supplementary files (inputs, sample outputs). There
|
|
|
|
|
are two approaches which can be observed. Supplementary files can be downloaded
|
|
|
|
|
either on the start of the execution or during execution. If the files are
|
|
|
|
|
downloaded at the beginning, execution does not really started at this point and
|
|
|
|
|
if there are problems with network worker will find it right away and can abort
|
|
|
|
|
execution without executing single task. Slight problems can arise if some of
|
|
|
|
|
the files needs to have same name (e.g. solution assumes that input is
|
|
|
|
|
`input.txt`), in this scenario downloaded files cannot be renamed at the
|
|
|
|
|
beginning but during execution which is somehow impractical and not easily
|
|
|
|
|
observed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second solution of this problem when files are downloaded on the fly has quite
|
|
|
|
|
opposite problem, if there are problems with network, worker will find it during
|
|
|
|
|
execution when for instance almost whole execution is done, this is also not
|
|
|
|
|
ideal solution if we care about burnt hardware resources. On the other hand
|
|
|
|
|
using this approach users have quite advanced control of execution flow and know
|
|
|
|
|
what files exactly are available during execution which is from users
|
|
|
|
|
perspective probably more appealing then the first solution. Based on that,
|
|
|
|
|
downloading of supplementary files using 'fetch' tasks during execution was
|
|
|
|
|
chosen and implemented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Sandboxing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are numerous ways how to approach sandboxing on different platforms,
|
|
|
|
|
describing all possible approaches is out of scope of this document. Instead of
|
|
|
|
|
that have a look at some of the features which are certainly needed for ReCodEx
|
|
|
|
|
and propose some particular sandboxes implementations on Linux or Windows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General purpose of sandbox is safely execute software in any form, from scripts
|
|
|
|
|
to binaries. Various sandboxes differ in how safely are they and what limiting
|
|
|
|
|
features they have. Ideal situation is that sandbox will have numerous options
|
|
|
|
|
and corresponding features which will allow administrators to setup environment
|
|
|
|
|
as they like and which will not allow user programs to somehow damage executing
|
|
|
|
|
machine in any way possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For ReCodEx and its evaluation there is need for at least these features:
|
|
|
|
|
execution time and memory limitation, disk operations limit, disk accessibility
|
|
|
|
|
restrictions and network restrictions. All these features if combined and
|
|
|
|
|
implemented well are giving pretty safe sandbox which can be used for all kinds
|
|
|
|
|
of users solutions and should be able to restrict and stop any standard way of
|
|
|
|
|
attacks or errors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Linux
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Linux systems have quite extent support of sandboxing in kernel, there were
|
|
|
|
|
introduced and implemented kernel namespaces and cgroups which combined can
|
|
|
|
|
limit hardware resources (cpu, memory) and separate executing program into its
|
|
|
|
|
own namespace (pid, network). These two features comply sandbox requirement for
|
|
|
|
|
ReCodEx so there were two options, either find existing solution or implement
|
|
|
|
|
new one. Luckily existing solution was found and its name is **isolate**.
|
|
|
|
|
Isolate does not use all possible kernel features but only subset which is still
|
|
|
|
|
enough to be used by ReCodEx.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Windows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The opposite situation is in Windows world, there is limited support in its
|
|
|
|
|
kernel which makes sandboxing a bit trickier. Windows kernel only has ways how
|
|
|
|
|
to restrict privileges of a process through restriction of internal access
|
|
|
|
|
tokens. Monitoring of hardware resources is not possible but used resources can
|
|
|
|
|
be obtained through newly created job objects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are numerous sandboxes for Windows but they all are focused on different
|
|
|
|
|
things in a lot of cases they serves as safe environment for malicious programs,
|
|
|
|
|
viruses in particular. Or they are designed as a separate filesystem namespace
|
|
|
|
|
for installing a lot of temporarily used programs. From all these we can
|
|
|
|
|
mention: Sandboxie, Comodo Internet Security, Cuckoo sandbox and many others.
|
|
|
|
|
None of these is fitted as sandbox solution for ReCodEx. With this being said we
|
|
|
|
|
can safely state that designing and implementing new general sandbox for Windows
|
|
|
|
|
is out of scope of this project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But designing sandbox only for specific environment is possible, namely for C#
|
|
|
|
|
and .NET. CLR as a virtual machine and runtime environment has a pretty good
|
|
|
|
|
security support for restrictions and separation which is also transferred to
|
|
|
|
|
C#. This makes it quite easy to implement simple sandbox within C# but there are
|
|
|
|
|
not any well known general purpose implementations. As said in previous
|
|
|
|
|
paragraph implementing our own solution is out of scope of project. But C#
|
|
|
|
|
sandbox is quite good topic for another project for example term project for C#
|
|
|
|
|
course so it might be written and integrated in future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Fileserver
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fileserver provides access over HTTP to a shared storage space that contains
|
|
|
|
|
files submitted by students, supplementary files such as test inputs and outputs
|
|
|
|
|
and results of evaluation. In other words, it acts as an intermediate storage
|
|
|
|
|
node for data passed between the frontend and the backend. This functionality
|
|
|
|
|
can be easily separated from the rest of the backend features, which led to
|
|
|
|
|
designing the fileserver as a standalone component. Such design helps
|
|
|
|
|
encapsulate the details of how the files are stored (e.g. on a file system, in a
|
|
|
|
|
database or using a cloud storage service), while also making it possible to
|
|
|
|
|
share the storage between multiple ReCodEx frontends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For early releases of the system, we chose to store all files on the file system
|
|
|
|
|
-- it is the least complicated solution (in terms of implementation complexity)
|
|
|
|
|
and the storage backend can be rather easily migrated to a different technology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the facts we learned from CodEx is that many exercises share test input
|
|
|
|
|
and output files, and also that these files can be rather large (hundreds of
|
|
|
|
|
megabytes). A direct consequence of this is that we cannot add these files to
|
|
|
|
|
submission archives that are to be downloaded by workers -- the combined size of
|
|
|
|
|
the archives would quickly exceed gigabytes, which is impractical. Another
|
|
|
|
|
conclusion we made is that a way to deal with duplicate files must be
|
|
|
|
|
introduced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A simple solution to this problem is storing supplementary files under the
|
|
|
|
|
hashes of their content. This ensures that every file is stored only once. On
|
|
|
|
|
the other hand, it makes it more difficult to understand what the content of a
|
|
|
|
|
file is at a glance, which might prove problematic for the administrator.
|
|
|
|
|
However, human-readable identification is not as important as removing
|
|
|
|
|
duplicates -- administrators rarely need to inspect stored files (and when they
|
|
|
|
|
do, they should know their hashes), but duplicate files occupied a large part of
|
|
|
|
|
the disk space used by CodEx.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A notable part of the work of the fileserver is done by a web server (e.g.
|
|
|
|
|
listening to HTTP requests and caching recently accessed files in memory for
|
|
|
|
|
faster access). What remains to be implemented is handling requests that upload
|
|
|
|
|
files -- student submissions should be stored in archives to facilitate simple
|
|
|
|
|
downloading and supplementary exercise files need to be stored under their
|
|
|
|
|
hashes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We decided to use Python and the Flask web framework. This combination makes it
|
|
|
|
|
possible to express the logic in ~100 SLOC and also provides means to run the
|
|
|
|
|
fileserver as a standalone service (without a web server), which is useful for
|
|
|
|
|
development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Cleaner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worker can use caching mechanism based on files from fileserver under one
|
|
|
|
|
condition, provided files has to have unique name. This means there has to be
|
|
|
|
|
system which can download file, store it in cache and after some time of
|
|
|
|
|
inactivity delete it. Because there can be multiple worker instances on some
|
|
|
|
|
particular server it is not efficient to have this system in every worker on its
|
|
|
|
|
own. So it is feasible to have this feature somehow shared among all workers on
|
|
|
|
|
the same machine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solution may be again having separate service connected through network with
|
|
|
|
|
workers which would provide such functionality, but this would mean component
|
|
|
|
|
with another communication for the purpose, where it is not exactly needed. But
|
|
|
|
|
mainly it would be single-failure component. If it would stop working then it is
|
|
|
|
|
quite a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So there was chosen another solution which assumes worker has access to
|
|
|
|
|
specified cache folder. In there folder worker can download supplementary files
|
|
|
|
|
and copy them from here. This means every worker has the possibility to maintain
|
|
|
|
|
downloads to cache, but what is worker not able to properly do, is deletion of
|
|
|
|
|
unused files after some time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Architecture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For that functionality single-purpose component is introduced which is called
|
|
|
|
|
'cleaner'. It is simple script executed within cron which is able to delete
|
|
|
|
|
files which were unused for some time. Together with worker fetching feature
|
|
|
|
|
cleaner completes particular server specific caching system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cleaner as mentioned is simple script which is executed regularly as a cron job.
|
|
|
|
|
If there is caching system like it was introduced in paragraph above there are
|
|
|
|
|
little possibilities how cleaner should be implemented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On various filesystems there is usually support for two particular timestamps,
|
|
|
|
|
`last access time` and `last modification time`. Files in cache are once
|
|
|
|
|
downloaded and then just copied, this means that last modification time is set
|
|
|
|
|
only once on creation of file and last access time should be set every time on
|
|
|
|
|
copy. From this we can conclude that last access time is what is needed here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But unlike last modification time, last access time is not usually enabled on
|
|
|
|
|
conventional filesystems (more on this subject can be found
|
|
|
|
|
[here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stat_%28system_call%29#Criticism_of_atime)).
|
|
|
|
|
So if we choose to use last access time, filesystem used for cache folder has to
|
|
|
|
|
have last access time for files enabled. Last access time was chosen for
|
|
|
|
|
implementation in ReCodEx but this might change in further releases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, there is another way, last modification time which is broadly supported
|
|
|
|
|
can be used. But this solution is not automatic and worker would have to 'touch'
|
|
|
|
|
cache files whenever they are accessed. This solution is maybe a bit better than
|
|
|
|
|
the one with last access time and might be implemented in future releases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Caching flow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having cleaner as separated component and caching itself handled in worker is
|
|
|
|
|
kind of blurry and is not clearly observable that it works without problems.
|
|
|
|
|
The goal is to have system which can recover from every kind of errors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Follows description of one possible implementation. This whole mechanism relies
|
|
|
|
|
on worker ability to recover from internal fetch task failure. In case of error
|
|
|
|
|
here job will be reassigned to another worker where problem hopefully does not
|
|
|
|
|
arise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First start with worker implementation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- worker discovers fetch task which should download supplementary file
|
|
|
|
|
- worker takes name of file and tries to copy it from cache folder to its
|
|
|
|
|
working folder
|
|
|
|
|
- if successful then last access time should be rewritten (by filesystem
|
|
|
|
|
itself) and whole operation is done
|
|
|
|
|
- if not successful then file has to be downloaded
|
|
|
|
|
- file is downloaded from fileserver to working folder and then
|
|
|
|
|
copied to cache
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous implementation is only within worker, cleaner can anytime intervene and
|
|
|
|
|
delete files. Implementation in cleaner follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- cleaner on its start stores current reference timestamp which will be used for
|
|
|
|
|
comparison and load configuration values of caching folder and maximal file
|
|
|
|
|
age
|
|
|
|
|
- there is a loop going through all files and even directories in specified
|
|
|
|
|
cache folder
|
|
|
|
|
- if difference between last access time and reference timestamp is greater
|
|
|
|
|
than specified maximal file age, then file or folder is deleted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous description implies that there is gap between detection of last access
|
|
|
|
|
time and deleting file within cleaner. In the gap there can be worker which will
|
|
|
|
|
access file and the file is anyway deleted but this is fine, file is deleted but
|
|
|
|
|
worker has it copied. If worker does not copy whole file or even do not start to
|
|
|
|
|
copy it and the file is deleted then copy process will fail. This will cause
|
|
|
|
|
internal task failure which will be handled by reassigning job to another
|
|
|
|
|
worker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another problem can be with two workers downloading the same file, but this is
|
|
|
|
|
also not a problem, file is firstly downloaded to working folder and after that
|
|
|
|
|
copied to cache.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And even if something else unexpectedly fails and because of that fetch task
|
|
|
|
|
will fail during execution, even that should be fine as mentioned previsously.
|
|
|
|
|
This should be the last salvation in case everything else goes wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Monitor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Users want to view real time evaluation progress of their solution. It can be
|
|
|
|
|
easily done with established double-sided connection stream, but it is hard to
|
|
|
|
|
achieve with plain HTTP. HTTP itself works on a separate request basis with no
|
|
|
|
|
long term connection. The HTML5 specification contains Server-Sent Events - a
|
|
|
|
|
means of sending text messages unidirectionally from an HTTP server to a
|
|
|
|
|
subscribed website. Sadly, it is not supported in Internet Explorer and Edge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, there is another widely used technology that can solve this problem --
|
|
|
|
|
the WebSocket protocol. It is more general than necessary (it enables
|
|
|
|
|
bidirectional communication) and requires additional web server configuration,
|
|
|
|
|
but it is supported in recent versions of all major web browsers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Working with the WebSocket protocol from the backend is possible, but not ideal
|
|
|
|
|
from the design point of view. Backend should be hidden from public internet to
|
|
|
|
|
minimize surface for possible attacks. With this in mind, there are two possible
|
|
|
|
|
options:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- send progress messages through the API
|
|
|
|
|
- make a separate component that forwards progress messages to clients
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Both of the two possibilities have their benefits and drawbacks. The first one
|
|
|
|
|
requires no additional component and the API is already publicly visible. On the
|
|
|
|
|
other side, working with WebSockets from PHP is complicated (but it is possible
|
|
|
|
|
with the help of third-party libraries) and embedding this functionality into
|
|
|
|
|
API is not extendable. The second approach is better for future changing the
|
|
|
|
|
protocol or implementing extensions like caching of messages. Also, the progress
|
|
|
|
|
feature is considered only optional, because there may be clients for which this
|
|
|
|
|
feature is useless. Major drawback of separate component is another part, which
|
|
|
|
|
needs to be publicly exposed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We decided to make a separate component, mainly because it is smaller component
|
|
|
|
|
with only one role, better maintainability and optional demands for progress
|
|
|
|
|
callback.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several possibilities how to write the component. Notably, considered
|
|
|
|
|
options were already used languages C++, PHP, JavaScript and Python. At the end,
|
|
|
|
|
the Python language was chosen for its simplicity, great support for all used
|
|
|
|
|
technologies and also there are free Python developers in out team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### API server
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The API server must handle HTTP requests and manage the state of the application
|
|
|
|
|
in some kind of a database. The API server will be a RESTful service and will
|
|
|
|
|
return data encoded as JSON documents. It must also be able to communicate with
|
|
|
|
|
the backend over ZeroMQ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We considered several technologies which could be used:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- PHP + Apache -- one of the most widely used technologies for creating web
|
|
|
|
|
servers. It is a suitable technology for this kind of a project. It has all
|
|
|
|
|
the features we need when some additional extensions are installed (to support
|
|
|
|
|
LDAP or ZeroMQ).
|
|
|
|
|
- Ruby on Rails, Python (Django), etc. -- popular web technologies that appeared
|
|
|
|
|
in the last decade. Both support ZeroMQ and LDAP via extensions and have large
|
|
|
|
|
developer communities.
|
|
|
|
|
- ASP.NET (C#), JSP (Java) -- these technologies are very robust and are used to
|
|
|
|
|
create server technologies in many big enterprises. Both can run on Windows
|
|
|
|
|
and Linux servers (ASP.NET using the .NET Core).
|
|
|
|
|
- JavaScript (Node.js) -- it is a quite new technology and it is being used to
|
|
|
|
|
create REST APIs lately. Applications running on Node.js are quite performant
|
|
|
|
|
and the number of open-source libraries available on the Internet is very
|
|
|
|
|
huge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We chose PHP and Apache mainly because we were familiar with these technologies
|
|
|
|
|
and we were able to develop all the features we needed without learning to use a
|
|
|
|
|
new technology. Since the number of features was quite high and needed to meet a
|
|
|
|
|
strict deadline. This does not mean that we would find all the other
|
|
|
|
|
technologies superior to PHP in all other aspects - PHP 7 is a mature language
|
|
|
|
|
with a huge community and a wide range of tools, libraries, and frameworks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We decided to use an ORM framework to manage the database, namely the widely
|
|
|
|
|
used PHP ORM Doctrine 2. Using an ORM tool means we do not have to write SQL
|
|
|
|
|
queries by hand. Instead, we work with persistent objects, which provides a
|
|
|
|
|
higher level of abstraction. Doctrine also has a robust database abstraction
|
|
|
|
|
layer so the database engine is not very important and it can be changed without
|
|
|
|
|
any need for changing the code. MariaDB was chosen as the storage backend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To speed up the development process of the PHP server application we decided to
|
|
|
|
|
use a web framework. After evaluating and trying several frameworks, such as
|
|
|
|
|
Lumen, Laravel, and Symfony, we ended up using Nette.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Lumen** and **Laravel** seemed promissing but the default ORM framework
|
|
|
|
|
Eloquent is an implementation of ActiveRecord which we wanted to avoid. It
|
|
|
|
|
was also suprisingly complicated to implement custom middleware for validation
|
|
|
|
|
of access tokens in the headers of incoming HTTP requests.
|
|
|
|
|
- **Symfony** is a very good framework and has Doctrine "built-in". The reason
|
|
|
|
|
why we did not use Symfony in the end was our lack of experience with this
|
|
|
|
|
framework.
|
|
|
|
|
- **Nette framework** is very popular in the Czech Republic -- its lead
|
|
|
|
|
developer is a well-known Czech programmer David Grudl. We were already
|
|
|
|
|
familiar with the patterns used in this framework, such as dependency
|
|
|
|
|
injection, authentication, routing. These concepts are useful even when
|
|
|
|
|
developing a REST application which might be a surprise considering that
|
|
|
|
|
Nette focuses on "traditional" web applications.
|
|
|
|
|
Nette is inspired by Symfony and many of the Symfony bundles are available
|
|
|
|
|
as components or extensions for Nette. There is for example a Nette
|
|
|
|
|
extension which makes integration of Doctrine 2 very straightforward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Architecture of the system
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Nette framework is an MVP (Model, View, Presenter) framework. It has many
|
|
|
|
|
tools for creating complex websites and we need only a subset of them or we use
|
|
|
|
|
different libraries which suite our purposes better:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Model** - the model layer is implemented using the Doctrine 2 ORM insead of
|
|
|
|
|
Nette Database
|
|
|
|
|
- **View** - the whole view layer of the Nette framework (e.g., the Latte engine
|
|
|
|
|
used for HTML template rendering) is unnecessary since we will return all the
|
|
|
|
|
responses encoded in JSON. JSON is a common format used in APIs and we decided
|
|
|
|
|
to prefer it to XML or a custom format.
|
|
|
|
|
- **Presenter** - the whole lifecycle of a request processing of the Nette
|
|
|
|
|
framework is used. The Presenters are used to group the logic of the individual
|
|
|
|
|
API endpoints. The routing mechanism is modified to distinguish the actions by
|
|
|
|
|
both the URL and the HTTP method of the request.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Authentication
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To make certain data and actions acessible only for some specific users, there
|
|
|
|
|
must be a way how these users can prove their identity. We decided to avoid PHP
|
|
|
|
|
sessions to make the server stateless (session ID is stored in the cookies of
|
|
|
|
|
the HTTP requests and responses). The server issues a specific token for the
|
|
|
|
|
user after his/her identity is verified (i.e., by providing email and password)
|
|
|
|
|
and sent to the client in the body of the HTTP response. The client must
|
|
|
|
|
remember this token and attach it to every following request in the
|
|
|
|
|
*Authorization* header.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The token must be valid only for a certain time period ("log out" the user after
|
|
|
|
|
a few hours of inactivity) and it must be protected against abuse (e.g., an
|
|
|
|
|
attacker must not be able to issue a token which will be considered valid by the
|
|
|
|
|
system and using which the attacker could pretend to be a different user). We
|
|
|
|
|
decided to use the JWT standard (the JWS).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The JWT is a base64-encoded string which contains three JSON documents - a
|
|
|
|
|
header, some payload, and a signature. The interesting parts are the payload and
|
|
|
|
|
the signature: the payload can contain any data which can identify the user and
|
|
|
|
|
metadata of the token (i.e., the time when the token was issued, the time of
|
|
|
|
|
expiration). The last part is a digital signature contains a digital signature
|
|
|
|
|
of the header and payload and it ensures that nobody can issue their own token
|
|
|
|
|
and steal someone's identity. Both of these characteristics give us the
|
|
|
|
|
opportunity to validate the token without storing all of the tokens in the
|
|
|
|
|
database.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To implement JWT in Nette, we have to implement some of its security-related
|
|
|
|
|
interfaces such as IAuthenticator and IUserStorage, which is rather easy thanks
|
|
|
|
|
to the simple authentication flow. Replacing these services in a Nette
|
|
|
|
|
application is also straightforward, thanks to its dependency injection
|
|
|
|
|
container implementation. The encoding and decoding of the tokens itself
|
|
|
|
|
including generating the signature and signature verification is done through a
|
|
|
|
|
widely used third-party library which lowers the risk of having a bug in the
|
|
|
|
|
implementation of this critical security feature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
##### Backend state monitoring
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The next thing related to communication with the backend is monitoring its
|
|
|
|
|
current state. This concerns namely which workers are available for processing
|
|
|
|
|
different hardware groups and which languages can be therefore used in
|
|
|
|
|
exercises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another step would be the overall backend state like how many jobs were
|
|
|
|
|
processed by some particular worker, workload of the broker and the workers,
|
|
|
|
|
etc. The easiest solution is to manage this information by hand, every instance
|
|
|
|
|
of the API server has to have an administrator which would have to fill them.
|
|
|
|
|
This includes only the currently available workers and runtime
|
|
|
|
|
environments which does not change very often. The real-time statistics of the
|
|
|
|
|
backend cannot be made accessible this way in a reasonable way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A better solution is to update this information automatically. This can be
|
|
|
|
|
done in two ways:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- It can be provided by the backend on-demand if API needs it
|
|
|
|
|
- The backend will send these information periodically to the API.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Things like currently available workers or runtime environments are better to be
|
|
|
|
|
really up-to-date so this could be provided on-demand if needed. Backend
|
|
|
|
|
statistics are not that necessary and could be updated periodically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However due to the lack of time automatic monitoring of the backend state will
|
|
|
|
|
not be implemented in the early versions of this project but might be
|
|
|
|
|
implemented in some of the next releases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### The WebApp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The web application ("WebApp") is one of the possible client applications of the ReCodEx
|
|
|
|
|
system. Creating a web application as the first client application has several advantages:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- no installation or setup is required on the user's device
|
|
|
|
|
- works on all platforms including mobile devices
|
|
|
|
|
- when a new version is rolled out all the clients will use this version without
|
|
|
|
|
any need for manula instalation of the update
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the downsides is the large number of different web browsers (including
|
|
|
|
|
the older versions of a specific browser) and their different interpretation
|
|
|
|
|
of the code (HTML, CSS, JS). Some features of the latest specifications of HTML5
|
|
|
|
|
are implemented in some browsers which are used by a subset of the Internet
|
|
|
|
|
users. This has to be taken into account when choosing appropriate tools
|
|
|
|
|
for implementation of a website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are two basic ways how to create a website these days:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **server-side approach** - user's actions are processed on the server and the
|
|
|
|
|
HTML code with the results of the action is generated on the server and sent
|
|
|
|
|
back to the user's Internet browser. The client does not handle any logic
|
|
|
|
|
(apart from rendering of the user interface and some basic user interaction)
|
|
|
|
|
and is therefore very simple. The server can use the API server for processing
|
|
|
|
|
of the actions so the business logic of the server can be very simple as well.
|
|
|
|
|
A disadvantage of this approach is that a lot of redundant data is transferred
|
|
|
|
|
across the requests although some parts of the content can be cached (e.g.,
|
|
|
|
|
CSS files). This results in longer loading times of the website.
|
|
|
|
|
- **server-side rendering with asynchronous updates (AJAX)** - a slightly
|
|
|
|
|
different approach is to render the page on the server as in the previous case
|
|
|
|
|
but then execute user's actions asynchronously using the `XMLHttpRequest`
|
|
|
|
|
JavaScript functionality. Which creates a HTTP request and transfers only the
|
|
|
|
|
part of the website which will be updated.
|
|
|
|
|
- **client-side approach** - the opposite approach is to transfer the
|
|
|
|
|
communication with the API server and the rendering of the HTML completely
|
|
|
|
|
from the server directly to the client. The client runs the code (usually
|
|
|
|
|
JavaScript) in his/her web browser and the content of the website is generated
|
|
|
|
|
based on the data received from the API server. The script file is usually
|
|
|
|
|
quite large but it can be cached and does not have to be downloaded from the
|
|
|
|
|
server again (until the cached file expires). Only the data from the API
|
|
|
|
|
server needs to be transferred over the Internet and thus reduce the volume of
|
|
|
|
|
payload on each request which leads to a much more responsive user experience,
|
|
|
|
|
especially on slower networks. Since the client-side code has full control
|
|
|
|
|
over the UI and a more sophisticated user interactions with the UI can be
|
|
|
|
|
achieved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of these approaches are used in production by the web developers and all
|
|
|
|
|
of them are well documented and there are mature tools for creating websites
|
|
|
|
|
using any of these approaches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We decided to use the third approach -- to create a fully client-side
|
|
|
|
|
application which would be familiar and intuitive for a user who is used to
|
|
|
|
|
modern web applications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Used technologies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We examined several frameworks which are commonly used to speed up the
|
|
|
|
|
development of a web application. There are several open source options
|
|
|
|
|
available with a large number of tools, tutorials, and libraries. From the many
|
|
|
|
|
options there are two main frameworks worth considering:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Angular 2** - it is a new framework which was developed by Google. This
|
|
|
|
|
framework is very complex and provides the developer with many tools which
|
|
|
|
|
make creating a website very straigtforward. The code can be written in pure
|
|
|
|
|
JavaScript (ES5) or using the TypeScript language which is then transpiled
|
|
|
|
|
into JavaScript. Creating a web application in Angular 2 is based on creating
|
|
|
|
|
and composing components. The previous version of Angular is not compatible
|
|
|
|
|
with this new version.
|
|
|
|
|
- **React and Redux** - [React](https://facebook.github.io/react) is a fast
|
|
|
|
|
library for rendering of the user interface developed by Facebook. It is based
|
|
|
|
|
on components composition as well. A React application is usually written in
|
|
|
|
|
EcmaScript 6 and the JSX syntax for defining the component tree. This code is
|
|
|
|
|
usually transpiled to JavaScript (ES5) using some kind of a transpiler like
|
|
|
|
|
Babel. [Redux](http://redux.js.org/) is a library for managing the state of
|
|
|
|
|
the application and it implements a modification of the so-called Flux
|
|
|
|
|
architecture introduced by Facebook. React and Redux are being used for a
|
|
|
|
|
longer time than Angular 2 and both are still actively developed. There are
|
|
|
|
|
many open-source components and addons available for both React and Redux.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We decided to use React and Redux over Angular 2 for several reasons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- there is a large community arround these libraries and there is a large number
|
|
|
|
|
of tutorials, libraries, and other resources available online
|
|
|
|
|
- many of the web frontend developers are familiar with React and Redux and
|
|
|
|
|
contributing to the project should be easy for them
|
|
|
|
|
- Angular 2 was still not finished at the time we started developing the web
|
|
|
|
|
application
|
|
|
|
|
- we had previous experience with React and Redux and Angular 2 did not bring
|
|
|
|
|
any significant improvements and features over React so it would not be worth
|
|
|
|
|
learning the paradigms of a new framework
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### User interface design
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no artist on the team so we had to come up with an idea how to create a
|
|
|
|
|
visually appealing application with this handicap. User interfaces created by
|
|
|
|
|
programmers are notoriously ugly and unintuitive. Luckily we found the
|
|
|
|
|
[AdminLTE](https://almsaeedstudio.com/) theme by Abdullah Almsaeed which is
|
|
|
|
|
built on top of the [Bootstrap framework](http://getbootstrap.com/) by Twitter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a great combination because there is an open-source implementation of
|
|
|
|
|
the Bootstrap components for React and with the stylesheets from AdminLTE the
|
|
|
|
|
application looks good and is distingushable form the many websites using the
|
|
|
|
|
Bootstrap framework with very little work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### WebApp architecture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole project is written using the next generation of JavaScript referred to
|
|
|
|
|
as *ECMAScript 6* (also known as *ES6*, *ES.next*, or *Harmony*). Since not all
|
|
|
|
|
of the features introduced in this standard are implemented in today's modern
|
|
|
|
|
web browsers (like classes and the spread operator) and hardly any are
|
|
|
|
|
implemented in the older versions of the web browsers which are currently still
|
|
|
|
|
in use, the source code is transpiled into the older standard *ES5* using
|
|
|
|
|
[Babel.js](https://babeljs.io/) transpiler and bundled into a single script file
|
|
|
|
|
using the [webpack](https://webpack.github.io/) moudle bundler. The need for a
|
|
|
|
|
transpiler also arises from the usage of the *JSX* syntax for declaring React
|
|
|
|
|
components. To read more about these these tools and their usage please refer to
|
|
|
|
|
the [installation documentation](#Installation). The whole bundling process
|
|
|
|
|
takes place at deployment and is not repeated afterwards when running in
|
|
|
|
|
production.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
##### State management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@todo: Describe how Redux works
|
|
|
|
|
@todo: Describe where which part of the state is persisted (logged in user) and how
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# User documentation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Users interact with the ReCodEx through the web application. It is required to
|
|
|
|
|
use a modern web browser with good HTML5 and CSS3 support. Among others, cookies
|
|
|
|
|
and local storage are used. Also a decent JavaScript runtime must be provided by
|
|
|
|
|
the browser.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supported and tested browsers are: Firefox 50+, Chrome 55+, Opera 42+ and Edge
|
|
|
|
|
13+. Mobile devices often have problems with internationalization and possibly
|
|
|
|
|
lack support for some common features of desktop browsers. In this stage of
|
|
|
|
|
development is not possible for us to fine tune the interface for major mobile
|
|
|
|
|
browsers on all mobile platforms. However, it is confirmed to work with latest
|
|
|
|
|
Google Chrome and Gello browser on Android 7.1+. Issues have been reported with
|
|
|
|
|
Firefox that will be fixed in the future. Also, it is confirmed to work with
|
|
|
|
|
Safari browser on iOS 10.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Usage of the web application is divided into sections concerning particular user
|
|
|
|
|
roles. Under these sections all possible use cases can be found. These sections
|
|
|
|
|
are inclusive, so more privileged users need to read instructions for all less
|
|
|
|
|
privileged users. Described roles are:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Student
|
|
|
|
|
- Group supervisor
|
|
|
|
|
- Group administrator
|
|
|
|
|
- Instance administrator
|
|
|
|
|
- Superadministrator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Terminology
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Instance** -- Represents a university, company or some other organization
|
|
|
|
|
unit. Multiple instances can exist in a single ReCodEx installation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Group** -- A group of students to which exercises are assigned by a
|
|
|
|
|
supervisor. It should typically correspond with a real world lab group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**User** -- A person that interacts with the system using the web interface (or
|
|
|
|
|
an alternative client).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Student** -- A user with least privileges who is subscribed to some groups and
|
|
|
|
|
submits solutions to exercise assignments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Supervisor** -- A person responsible for assigning exercises to a group and
|
|
|
|
|
reviewing submissions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Admin** -- A person responsible for the maintenance of the system and fixing
|
|
|
|
|
problems supervisors cannot solve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Exercise** -- An algorithmic problem that can be assigned to a group. They
|
|
|
|
|
can be shared by the teachers using an exercise database in ReCodEx.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Assignment** -- An exercise assigned to a group, possibly with modifications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Runtime environment** -- Runtime environment is unique combination of platform
|
|
|
|
|
(OS) and programming language runtime/compiler in specific version. Runtime
|
|
|
|
|
environments are managed by the administrators to reflect abilities of whole
|
|
|
|
|
system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Hardware group** -- Hardware group is a set of workers with similar hardware.
|
|
|
|
|
Its purpose is to group workers that are likely to run a program using the same
|
|
|
|
|
amount of resources. Hardware groups are managed byt the system administrators
|
|
|
|
|
who have to keep them up-to-date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## General basics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description of general basics which are the same for all users of ReCodEx web
|
|
|
|
|
application follows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### First steps in ReCodEx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can create an account by clicking the "Create account" menu item in the left
|
|
|
|
|
sidebar. You can choose between two types of registration methods -- by creating
|
|
|
|
|
a local account with a specific password, or pairing your new account with an
|
|
|
|
|
existing CAS UK account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you decide to create a new local account using the "Create ReCodEx account”
|
|
|
|
|
form, you will have to provide your details and choose a password for your
|
|
|
|
|
account. Although ReCodEx allows using quite weak passwords, it is wise to use a
|
|
|
|
|
bit stronger ones The actual strength is shown in progress bar near the password
|
|
|
|
|
field during registration. You will later sign in using your email address as
|
|
|
|
|
your username and the password you select.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you decide to use the CAS UK service, then ReCodEx will verify your CAS
|
|
|
|
|
credentials and create a new account based on information stored there (name and
|
|
|
|
|
email address). You can change your personal information later on the
|
|
|
|
|
"Settings" page.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regardless of the desired account type, an instance it will belong to must be
|
|
|
|
|
selected. The instance will be most likely your university or other organization
|
|
|
|
|
you are a member of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To log in, go to the homepage of ReCodEx and in the left sidebar choose the menu
|
|
|
|
|
item "Sign in". Then you must enter your credentials into one of the two forms
|
|
|
|
|
-- if you selected a password during registration, then you should sign with
|
|
|
|
|
your email and password in the first form called "Sign into ReCodEx". If you
|
|
|
|
|
registered using the Charles University Authentication Service (CAS), you should
|
|
|
|
|
put your student’s number and your CAS password into the second form called
|
|
|
|
|
"Sign into ReCodEx using CAS UK".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several options you can edit in your user account:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- changing your personal information (i.e., name)
|
|
|
|
|
- changing your credentials (email and password)
|
|
|
|
|
- updating your preferences (source code viewer/editor settings, default
|
|
|
|
|
language)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can access the settings page through the "Settings" button right under
|
|
|
|
|
your name in the left sidebar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you are not active in ReCodEx for a whole day, you will be logged out
|
|
|
|
|
automatically. However, we recommend you sign out of the application after you
|
|
|
|
|
finish your interaction with it. The logout button is placed in the top section
|
|
|
|
|
of the left sidebar right under your name. You may need to expand the sidebar
|
|
|
|
|
with a button next to the "ReCodEx” title (informally known as _hamburger
|
|
|
|
|
button_), depending on your screen size.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Forgotten password
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you cannot remember your password and you do not use CAS UK authentication,
|
|
|
|
|
then you can reset your password. You will find a link saying "Cannot remember
|
|
|
|
|
what your password was? Reset your password." under the sign in form. After you
|
|
|
|
|
click this link, you will be asked to submit your registration email address. A
|
|
|
|
|
message with a link containing a special token will be sent to you by e-mail --
|
|
|
|
|
we make sure that the person who requested password resetting is really you.
|
|
|
|
|
When you visit the link, you will be able to enter a new password for your
|
|
|
|
|
account. The token is valid only for a couple of minutes, so do not forget to
|
|
|
|
|
reset the password as soon as possible, or you will have to request a new link
|
|
|
|
|
with a valid token.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you sign in through CAS UK, then please follow the instructions
|
|
|
|
|
provided by the administrators of the service described on their
|
|
|
|
|
website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Dashboard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you log into the system you should be redirected to your "Dashboard". On
|
|
|
|
|
this page you can see some brief information about the groups you are member of.
|
|
|
|
|
The information presented there varies with your role in the system -- further
|
|
|
|
|
description of dashboard will be provided later on with according roles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Student
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student is a default role for every newly registered user. This role has quite
|
|
|
|
|
limited capabilites in ReCodEx. Generally, a student can only submit solutions
|
|
|
|
|
of exercises in some particular groups. These groups should correspond to
|
|
|
|
|
courses he/she attends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the "Dashboard" page there is "Groups you are student of" section where you
|
|
|
|
|
can find list of your student groups. In first column of every row there is a
|
|
|
|
|
brief panel describing concerning group. There is name of the group and
|
|
|
|
|
percentage of gained points from course. If you have enough points to
|
|
|
|
|
successfully complete the course then this panel has green background with tick
|
|
|
|
|
sign. In the second column there is a list of assigned exercises with its
|
|
|
|
|
deadlines. If you want to quickly get to the groups page you might want to use
|
|
|
|
|
provided "Show group's detail" button.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Join group and start solving assignments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To be able to submit solutions you have to be a member of the right group. Each
|
|
|
|
|
instance has its own group hierarchy, so you can choose only those within your
|
|
|
|
|
instance. That is why a list of groups is available from under an instance link
|
|
|
|
|
located in the sidebar. This link brings you to instance detail page.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In there you can see a description of the instance and most importantly in
|
|
|
|
|
"Groups hierarchy" box there is a hierarchical list of all public groups in the
|
|
|
|
|
instance. Please note that groups with plus sign are collapsible and can be
|
|
|
|
|
further extended. When you find a group you would like to join, continue by
|
|
|
|
|
clicking on "See group's page" link following with "Join group" link.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Note:** Some groups can be marked as private and these groups are not visible
|
|
|
|
|
in hierarchy and membership cannot be established by students themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Management of students in this type of groups is in the hands of supervisors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the group detail page there are multiple interesting things for you. First
|
|
|
|
|
one is brief overview with information describing the group, there is list with
|
|
|
|
|
supervisors and also hierarchy of subgroups. Most importantly, there is the
|
|
|
|
|
"Student's dashboard" section. This section contains list of assignments and
|
|
|
|
|
a list of fellow students. If supervisors of groups allowed students to see each
|
|
|
|
|
other's statistics there will also be the number of points the students gained.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the "Assignments" box on the group detail page there is a list of assigned
|
|
|
|
|
exercises which students are supposed to solve. The assignments are displayed
|
|
|
|
|
with their names and deadlines. There are possibly two deadlines, the first one
|
|
|
|
|
means that till this datetime student will receive full amount of points in case
|
|
|
|
|
of successful solution. Second deadline does not have to be set, but in case it
|
|
|
|
|
is, the maximum number of points for successful solution between these two
|
|
|
|
|
deadlines can be different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An assignment link will lead you to assignment detail page where are presented
|
|
|
|
|
all known details about assignment. There are of course both deadlines, limit of
|
|
|
|
|
submissions which you can make and also full-range description of assignment,
|
|
|
|
|
which can be localized. The localization can be on demand switched between all
|
|
|
|
|
language variants in tab like box.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Further on the page you can find "Submitted solutions" box where is a list of
|
|
|
|
|
submissions with links to result details. But most importantly there is a
|
|
|
|
|
"Submit new solution" button on the assignment page which provides an interface
|
|
|
|
|
to submit solution of the assignment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After clicking on submit button, dialog window will show up. In here you can
|
|
|
|
|
upload files representing your solution, you can even add some notes to mark the
|
|
|
|
|
solution. Your supervisor can also access this note. After you successfully
|
|
|
|
|
upload all files necessary for your solution, click the "Submit your solution"
|
|
|
|
|
button and let ReCodEx evaluate the solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the execution ReCodEx backend might send evaluation progress state to
|
|
|
|
|
your browser which will be displayed in another dialog window. When the whole
|
|
|
|
|
execution is finished then a "See the results" button will appear and you can
|
|
|
|
|
look at the results of your solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the results detail page there are a lot of information. Apart from assignment
|
|
|
|
|
description, which is not connected to your results, there is also the solution
|
|
|
|
|
submitter name (supervisor can submit a solution on your behalf), further there
|
|
|
|
|
are files which were uploaded on submission and most importantly "Evaluation
|
|
|
|
|
details" and "Test results" boxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evaluation details contains overall results of your solution. There are
|
|
|
|
|
information such as whether the solution was provided before deadlines, if the
|
|
|
|
|
evaluation process successfully finished or if compilation succeeded. After that
|
|
|
|
|
you can find a lot of values, most important one is the last, "Total score",
|
|
|
|
|
consisting of your score, slash and the maximum number of points for this
|
|
|
|
|
assignment. Interestingly the your score value can be higher than the maximum,
|
|
|
|
|
which is caused by "Bonus points" item above. If your solution is nice and
|
|
|
|
|
supervisor notices it, he/she can assign you additional points for effort. On
|
|
|
|
|
the other hand, points can be also subtracted for bad coding habits or even
|
|
|
|
|
cheating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In test results box there is a table of all exercise tests results. Columns
|
|
|
|
|
represents these information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- test case overall result, symbol of yes/no option
|
|
|
|
|
- test case name
|
|
|
|
|
- percentage of correctness of this particular test
|
|
|
|
|
- evaluation status, if test was successfully executed or failed
|
|
|
|
|
- memory limit, if supervisor allowed it then percentual memory usage is
|
|
|
|
|
displayed
|
|
|
|
|
- time limit, if supervisor allowed it then percentual time usage is displayed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A new feature of web application is "Comments and notes" box where you can
|
|
|
|
|
communicate with your supervisors or just write random private notes to your
|
|
|
|
|
submission. Adding a note is quite simple, you just write it to text field in
|
|
|
|
|
the bottom of box and click on the "Send" button. The button with lock image
|
|
|
|
|
underneath can switch visibility of newly created comments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In case you think the ReCodEx evaluation of your solution is wrong, please use
|
|
|
|
|
the comments system described above, or even better notify your supervisor by
|
|
|
|
|
another channel (email). Unfortunately there is currently no notification
|
|
|
|
|
mechanism for new comment messages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Group supervisor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Group supervisor is typically the lecturer of a course. A user in this role can
|
|
|
|
|
modify group description and properties, assign exercises or manage list of
|
|
|
|
|
students. Further permissions like managing subgroups or supervisors is
|
|
|
|
|
available only for group administrators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On "Dashboard" page you can find "Groups you supervise" section. Here there are
|
|
|
|
|
boxes representing your groups with the list of students attending course and
|
|
|
|
|
their points. Student names are clickable with redirection to user's profile
|
|
|
|
|
where further information about his/hers assignments and solution can be found.
|
|
|
|
|
To quickly jump onto groups page, use "Show group's detail" button at the bottom
|
|
|
|
|
of the matching group box.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Manage group
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Locate group you supervise and you want to manage. All your supervised groups
|
|
|
|
|
are available in sidebar under "Groups -- supervisor" collapsible menu. If you
|
|
|
|
|
click on one of those you will be redirected to group detail page. In addition
|
|
|
|
|
to basic group information you can also see "Supervisor's controls" section. In
|
|
|
|
|
this section there are lists of current students and assignments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a supervisor of group you are able to see "Edit group settings" button
|
|
|
|
|
at the top of the page. Following this link will take you to group editation
|
|
|
|
|
page with form containing these fields:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- group name which is visible to other users
|
|
|
|
|
- external identification which may be used for pairing with entries in an
|
|
|
|
|
information system
|
|
|
|
|
- description of group which will be available to users in instance (in
|
|
|
|
|
Markdown)
|
|
|
|
|
- set if group is publicly visible (and joinable by students) or private
|
|
|
|
|
- options to set if students should be able see statistics of each other
|
|
|
|
|
- minimal points threshold which students have to gain to successfully complete
|
|
|
|
|
the course
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After filling all necessary fields the form can be sent by clicking on "Edit
|
|
|
|
|
group" button and all changes will be applied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For students management there are "Students" and "Add student" boxes. The first
|
|
|
|
|
one is simple list of all students which are attending the course with the
|
|
|
|
|
possibility of delete them from the group. That can be done by hitting "Leave
|
|
|
|
|
group" button near particular user. The second box is for adding students to the
|
|
|
|
|
group. There is a text field for typing name of the student and after clicking
|
|
|
|
|
on the magnifier image or pressing enter key there will appear list of matched
|
|
|
|
|
users. At this moment just click on the "Join group" button and student will be
|
|
|
|
|
signed in to your group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Assigning exercises
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before assigning an exercise, you obviously have to know what exercises are
|
|
|
|
|
available. A list of all exercises in the system can be found under "Exercises"
|
|
|
|
|
link in sidebar. This page contains a table with exercises names, difficulties
|
|
|
|
|
and names of the exercise authors. Further information about exercise is
|
|
|
|
|
available by clicking on its name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the exercise details page are numerous information about it. There is a box
|
|
|
|
|
with all possible localized descriptions and also a box with some additional
|
|
|
|
|
information of exercise author, its difficulty, version, etc. There is also a
|
|
|
|
|
description for supervisors by exercise author under "Exercise overview" option,
|
|
|
|
|
where some important information can be found. And most notably there is an
|
|
|
|
|
information about available programming languages for this exercise, under
|
|
|
|
|
"Supported runtime environments" section.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you decide that the exercise is suitable for one of your groups, look for the
|
|
|
|
|
"Groups" box at the bottom of the page. There is a list of all groups you
|
|
|
|
|
supervise with an "Assign" button which will assign the exercise to the
|
|
|
|
|
selected group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After clicking on the "Assign" button you should be redirected to assignment
|
|
|
|
|
editation page. In there you can find two forms, one for editation of assignment
|
|
|
|
|
meta information and the second one for setting exercise time and memory limits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In meta information form you can fill these options:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- name of the assignment which will be visible in a group
|
|
|
|
|
- visibility (if an assignment is under construction then you can mark it as not
|
|
|
|
|
visible and students will not see it)
|
|
|
|
|
- subform for localized descriptions (new localization can be added by clicking
|
|
|
|
|
on "Add language variant" button, current one can be deleted with "Remove this
|
|
|
|
|
language" button)
|
|
|
|
|
- language of description from dropdown field (English, Czech, German)
|
|
|
|
|
- description in selected language
|
|
|
|
|
- score configuration which will be used on students solution evaluation, you
|
|
|
|
|
can find some very simple one already in here, description of score
|
|
|
|
|
configuration can be found further in "Writing score configuration" chapter
|
|
|
|
|
- first submission deadline
|
|
|
|
|
- maximum points that can be gained before the first deadline; if you want to
|
|
|
|
|
manage all points manually, set it to 0 and then use bonus points, which are
|
|
|
|
|
described in the next subchapter
|
|
|
|
|
- second submission deadline, after that students still can submit exercises but
|
|
|
|
|
they are given no points no points (must be after the first deadline)
|
|
|
|
|
- maximum points that can be gained between first deadline and second deadline
|
|
|
|
|
- submission count limit for students' solutions -- limits the amount of
|
|
|
|
|
attempts a student has at solving the problem
|
|
|
|
|
- visibility of memory and time ratios; if true students can see the percentage
|
|
|
|
|
of used memory and time (with respect to the limit) for each test
|
|
|
|
|
- minimum percentage of points which each submission must gain to be considered
|
|
|
|
|
correct (if it gets less, it will gain no points)
|
|
|
|
|
- whether the assignment is marked as bonus one and points from solving it are
|
|
|
|
|
not included into group threshold limit (that means solving it can get you
|
|
|
|
|
additional points over the limit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The form has to be submitted with "Edit settings" button otherwise changes will
|
|
|
|
|
not be saved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The same editation page serves also for the purpose of assignment editation, not
|
|
|
|
|
only creation. That is why on bottom of the page "Delete the assignment" box
|
|
|
|
|
can be found. Clearly the button "Delete" in there can be used to unassign
|
|
|
|
|
exercise from group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The last unexplored area is the time and memory limits form. The whole form is
|
|
|
|
|
situated in a box with tabs which are leading to particular runtime
|
|
|
|
|
environments. If you wish not to use one of those, locate "Remove" button at the
|
|
|
|
|
bottom of the box tab which will delete this environment from the assignment.
|
|
|
|
|
Please note that this action is irreversible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In general, every tab in environments box contains some basic information about
|
|
|
|
|
runtime environment and another nested tabbed box. In there you can find all
|
|
|
|
|
hardware groups which are available for the exercise and set limits for all test
|
|
|
|
|
cases. The time limits have to be filled in seconds (float), memory limits are
|
|
|
|
|
in bytes (int). If you are interested in some reference values to particular
|
|
|
|
|
test case then you can take a peek on collapsible "Reference solutions'
|
|
|
|
|
evaluations" items. If you are satisfied with changes you made to the limits,
|
|
|
|
|
save the form with "Change limits" button right under environments box.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Students' solutions management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the most important tasks of a group supervisor is checking student
|
|
|
|
|
solutions. As automatic evaluation of them cannot catch all problems in the
|
|
|
|
|
source code, it is advisable to do a brief manual review of student's coding
|
|
|
|
|
style and reflect that in assignment bonus points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On "Assignment detail" page there is an "View student results" button near top
|
|
|
|
|
of the page (next to "Edit assignment settings" button). This will redirect you
|
|
|
|
|
to a page where is a list of boxes, one box per student. Each student box
|
|
|
|
|
contains a list of submissions for this assignment. The row structure of
|
|
|
|
|
submission list is the same as the structure in student's "Submitted solution"
|
|
|
|
|
box. More information about every solution can be showed by clicking on "Show
|
|
|
|
|
details" link on the end of solution row.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This page is the same as for students with one exception -- there is an
|
|
|
|
|
additional collapsed box "Set bonus points". In unfolded state, there is an
|
|
|
|
|
input field for one number (positive or negative integer) and confirmation
|
|
|
|
|
button "Set bonus points". After filling intended amount of points and
|
|
|
|
|
submitting the form, the data in "Evaluation details" box get immediately
|
|
|
|
|
updated. To remove assigned bonus points, submit just the zero number. The bonus
|
|
|
|
|
points are not additive, newer value overrides older values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is useful to give a feedback about the solution back to the user. For this
|
|
|
|
|
you can use the "Commens and notes" box. Make sure that the messages are not
|
|
|
|
|
private, so that the student can see them. More detailed description of this box
|
|
|
|
|
can be nicely used the "Comments and notes" box. Make sure that the messages are
|
|
|
|
|
not private, so the student can see them. More detailed description of this box
|
|
|
|
|
is available in student part of user documentation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the discussed concept was marking one solution as accepted. However, due
|
|
|
|
|
to lack of frontend developers it is not yet prepared in user interface. We
|
|
|
|
|
hope, it will be ready as soon as possible. The button for accepting a solution
|
|
|
|
|
will be most probably also on this page.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Creating exercises
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Link to exercise creation can be found in exercises list which is accessible
|
|
|
|
|
through "Exercises" link in sidebar. On the bottom of the exercises list page
|
|
|
|
|
you can find "Add exercise" button which will redirect you to exercise editation
|
|
|
|
|
page. In this moment exercise is already created so if you just leave this page
|
|
|
|
|
exercise will stay in the database. This is also reason why exercise creation
|
|
|
|
|
form is the same as the exercise editation form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise editation page is divided into three separate forms. First one is
|
|
|
|
|
supposed to contain meta information about exercise, second one is used for
|
|
|
|
|
uploading and management of supplementary files and third one manages runtime
|
|
|
|
|
configuration in which exercise can be executed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First form is located in "Edit exercise settings" and generally contains meta
|
|
|
|
|
information needed by frontend which are somehow somewhere visible. In here you
|
|
|
|
|
can define:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- exercise name which will be visible to other supervisors
|
|
|
|
|
- difficulty of exercise (easy, medium, hard)
|
|
|
|
|
- description which will be available only for visitors, may be used for further
|
|
|
|
|
description of exercise (for example information about test cases and how they
|
|
|
|
|
could be scored)
|
|
|
|
|
- private/public switch, if exercise is private then only you as author can see
|
|
|
|
|
it, assign it or modify it
|
|
|
|
|
- subform containing localized descriptions of exercise, new one can be added
|
|
|
|
|
with "Add language variant" button and current one deleted with "Remove this
|
|
|
|
|
language"
|
|
|
|
|
- language in which this particular description is in (Czech, English,
|
|
|
|
|
German)
|
|
|
|
|
- actual localized description of exercise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After all information is properly set form has to be submitted with "Edit
|
|
|
|
|
settings" button.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Management of supplementary files can be found in "Supplementary files" box.
|
|
|
|
|
Supplementary files are files which you can use further in job configurations
|
|
|
|
|
which have to be provided in all runtime configurations. These files are
|
|
|
|
|
uploaded directly to fileserver from where worker can download them and use
|
|
|
|
|
during execution according to job configuration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Files can be uploaded either by drag and drop mechanism or by standard "Add a
|
|
|
|
|
file" button. In opened dialog window choose file which should be uploaded. All
|
|
|
|
|
chosen files are immediately uploaded to server but to save supplementary files
|
|
|
|
|
list you have to hit "Save supplementary files" button. All previously uploaded
|
|
|
|
|
files are visible right under drag and drop area, please note that files are
|
|
|
|
|
stored on fileserver and cannot be deleted after upload.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The last form on exercise editation page is runtime configurations editation
|
|
|
|
|
form. Exercise can have multiple runtime configurations according to the number
|
|
|
|
|
of programming languages in which it can be run. Every runtime configuration
|
|
|
|
|
corresponds to one programming language because all of them has to have a bit
|
|
|
|
|
different job configuration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New runtime configuration can be added with "Add new runtime configuration"
|
|
|
|
|
button this will spawn new tab in runtime configurations box. In here you can
|
|
|
|
|
fill following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- human readable identifier of runtime configuration
|
|
|
|
|
- runtime environment which corresponds to programming language
|
|
|
|
|
- job configuration in YAML, detailed description of job configuration can be
|
|
|
|
|
found further in this chapter in "Writing job configuration" section
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you are done with changes to runtime configurations save form with "Change
|
|
|
|
|
runtime configurations" button. If you want to delete some particular runtime
|
|
|
|
|
just hit "Remove" button in the right tab, please note that after this operation
|
|
|
|
|
runtime configurations form has to be again saved to apply changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All runtime configurations which were added to exercise will be visible to
|
|
|
|
|
supervisors and all can be used in assignment, so please be sure that all of the
|
|
|
|
|
languages and job configurations are working.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you choose to delete exercise, at the bottom of the exercise editation page
|
|
|
|
|
you can find "Delete the exercise" box where "Delete" button is located. By
|
|
|
|
|
clicking on it exercise will be delete from the exercises list and will no
|
|
|
|
|
longer be available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Exercise's reference solutions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each exercise should have a set of reference solutions, which are used to tune
|
|
|
|
|
time and memory limits of assignments. Values of used time and memory for each
|
|
|
|
|
solution are displayed in yellow boxes under forms for setting assignment limits
|
|
|
|
|
as described earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, there is currently no user interface to upload and evaluate reference
|
|
|
|
|
solutions. It is possible to use direct REST API calls, but it is not much user
|
|
|
|
|
friendly. If you are interested, please look at [API
|
|
|
|
|
documentation](https://recodex.github.io/api/), notably sections
|
|
|
|
|
_Uploaded-Files_ and _Reference-Exercise-Solutions_. You need to upload the
|
|
|
|
|
reference solution files, create a new reference solution and then evaluate the
|
|
|
|
|
solution. After that, measured data will be available in the box at assignment
|
|
|
|
|
editing page (setting limits section).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are now working on a better user interface, which will be available soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Then its description will be added here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Group administrator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Group administrator is the group supervisor with some additional permissions in
|
|
|
|
|
particular group. Namely group administrator is capable of creating a subgroups
|
|
|
|
|
in managed group and also adding and deleting supervisors. Administrator of the
|
|
|
|
|
particular group can be only one person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Creating subgroups and managing supervisors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no special link which will get you to groups in which you are
|
|
|
|
|
administrator. So you have to get there through "Groups - supervisor" link in
|
|
|
|
|
sidebar and choose the right group detail page. If you are there you can see
|
|
|
|
|
"Administrator controls" section, here you can either add supervisor to group or
|
|
|
|
|
create new subgroup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Form for creating a subgroup is present right on the group detail page in "Add
|
|
|
|
|
subgroup" box. Group can be created with following options:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- name which will be visible in group hierarchy
|
|
|
|
|
- external identification, can be for instance ID of group from school system
|
|
|
|
|
- some brief description about group
|
|
|
|
|
- allow or deny users to see each others statistics from assignments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After filling all the information a group can be created by clicking on "Create
|
|
|
|
|
new group" button. If creation is successful then the group is visible in
|
|
|
|
|
"Groups hierarchy" box on the top of page. All information filled during
|
|
|
|
|
creation can be later modified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adding a supervisor to a group is rather easy, on group detail page is an "Add
|
|
|
|
|
supervisor" box which contains text field. In there you can type name or
|
|
|
|
|
username of any user from system. After filling user name, click on the
|
|
|
|
|
magnifier image or press the enter key and all suitable users are searched. If
|
|
|
|
|
your chosen supervisor is in the updated list then just click on the "Make
|
|
|
|
|
supervisor" button and new supervisor should be successfully set.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, existing supervisor can be removed from the group. On the group detail
|
|
|
|
|
page there is "Supervisors" box in which all supervisors of the group are
|
|
|
|
|
visible. If you are the group administrator, you can see there "Remove
|
|
|
|
|
supervisor" buttons right next to supervisors names. After clicking on it some
|
|
|
|
|
particular supervisor should not to be supervisor of the group anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Instance administrator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instance administrator can be only one person per instance. In addition to
|
|
|
|
|
previous roles this administrator should be able to modify the instance details,
|
|
|
|
|
manage licences and take care of top level groups which belong to the instance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Instance management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
List of all instances in the system can be found under "Instances" link in the
|
|
|
|
|
sidebar. On that page there is a table of instances with their respective
|
|
|
|
|
admins. If you are one of them, you can visit its page by clicking on the
|
|
|
|
|
instance name. On the instance details page you can find a description of the
|
|
|
|
|
instance, current groups hierarchy and a form for creating a new group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to change some of the instance settings, follow "Edit instance" link
|
|
|
|
|
on the instance details page. This will take you to the instance editation page
|
|
|
|
|
with corresponding form. In there you can fill following information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- name of the instance which will be visible to every other user
|
|
|
|
|
- brief description of instance and for whom it is intended
|
|
|
|
|
- checkbox if instance is open or not which means public or private (hidden from
|
|
|
|
|
potential users)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you are done with your editation, save filled information by clicking on
|
|
|
|
|
"Update instance" button.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you go back to the instance details page you can find there a "Create new
|
|
|
|
|
group" box which is able to add a group to the instance. This form is the same
|
|
|
|
|
as the one for creating subgroup in already existing group so we can skip
|
|
|
|
|
description of the form fields. After successful creation of the group it will
|
|
|
|
|
appear in "Groups hierarchy" box at the top of the page.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Licences
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the instance details page, there is a box "Licences". On the first line, it
|
|
|
|
|
shows it this instance has currently valid licence or not. Then, there are
|
|
|
|
|
multiple lines with all licences assigned to this instance. Each line consists of
|
|
|
|
|
a note, validity status (if it is valid or revoked by superadministrator) and
|
|
|
|
|
the last date of licence validity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A box "Add new licence" is used for creating new licences. Required fields are
|
|
|
|
|
the note and the last day of validity. It is not possible to extend licence
|
|
|
|
|
lifetime, a new one should be generated instead. It is possible to have more
|
|
|
|
|
than one valid licence at a time. Currently there is no user interface for
|
|
|
|
|
revoking licences, this is done manually by superadministrator. If an instance
|
|
|
|
|
is to be disabled, all valid licences have to be revoked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Superadministrator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Superadministrator is a user with the most privileges and as such superadmin
|
|
|
|
|
should be quite a unique role. Ideally, there should be only one user of this
|
|
|
|
|
kind, used with special caution and adequate security. With this stated it is
|
|
|
|
|
obvious that superadmin can perform any action the API is capable of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Users management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are only a few user roles in ReCodEx. Basically there are only three:
|
|
|
|
|
_student_, _supervisor_, and _superadmin_. Base role is student which is
|
|
|
|
|
assigned to every registered user. Roles are stored in database alongside other
|
|
|
|
|
information about user. One user always has only one role at the time. At first
|
|
|
|
|
startup of ReCodEx, the administrator has to change the role for his/her account
|
|
|
|
|
manually in the database. After that manual intervention into database should
|
|
|
|
|
never be needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a little catch in groups and instances management. Groups can have
|
|
|
|
|
admins and supervisors. This setting is valid only per one particular group and
|
|
|
|
|
has to be separated from basic role system. This implies that supervisor in one
|
|
|
|
|
group can be student in another and simultaneously have global supervisor role.
|
|
|
|
|
Changing role from student to supervisor and back is done automatically when the
|
|
|
|
|
new privileges are granted to the user, so managing roles by hand in database is
|
|
|
|
|
not needed. Previously stated information can be applied to instances as well,
|
|
|
|
|
but instances can only have admins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roles description:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Student -- Default role which is used for newly created accounts. Student can
|
|
|
|
|
join or leave public groups and submit solutions of assigned exercises.
|
|
|
|
|
- Supervisor -- Inherits all permissions from student role. Can manage groups to
|
|
|
|
|
which he/she belongs to. Supervisor can also view and change groups details,
|
|
|
|
|
manage assigned exercises, view students in group and their solutions for
|
|
|
|
|
assigned exercises. On top of that supervisor can create/delete groups too,
|
|
|
|
|
but only as subgroup of groups he/she belongs to.
|
|
|
|
|
- Superadmin -- Inherits all permissions from supervisor role. Most powerful
|
|
|
|
|
user in ReCodEx who should be able to do access any functionality provided by
|
|
|
|
|
the application.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Writing score configuration
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An important thing about assignment is how to assign points to particular
|
|
|
|
|
solutions. As mentioned previously, the whole job is composed of logical tests.
|
|
|
|
|
All of these tests have to contain one essential "evaluation" task. Evaluation
|
|
|
|
|
task should output one float number which can be further used for scoring of
|
|
|
|
|
particular tests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total resulting score of the students solution is then calculated according to a
|
|
|
|
|
supplied score config (described below) and using specified calculator. Total
|
|
|
|
|
score is also a float between 0 and 1. This number is then multiplied by the
|
|
|
|
|
maximum of points awarded for the assignment by the teacher assigning the
|
|
|
|
|
exercise -- not the exercise author.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For now, there is only one way how to write score configuration using only
|
|
|
|
|
simple score calculator. But the implementation in API is agile enough to handle
|
|
|
|
|
upcoming score calculators which might use some more complex scoring algorithms.
|
|
|
|
|
This also means that future calculators do not have to use the YAML format for
|
|
|
|
|
configuration. In fact, the configuration can be a string in any format.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Simple score calculation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First implemented calculator is simple score calculator with test weights. This
|
|
|
|
|
calculator just looks at the score of each test and put them together according
|
|
|
|
|
to the test weights specified in assignment configuration. Resulting score is
|
|
|
|
|
calculated as a sum of products of score and weight of each test divided by the
|
|
|
|
|
sum of all weights. The algorithm in Python would look something like this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
sum = 0
|
|
|
|
|
weightSum = 0
|
|
|
|
|
for t in tests:
|
|
|
|
|
sum += t.score * t.weight
|
|
|
|
|
weightSum += t.weight
|
|
|
|
|
score = sum / weightSum
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sample score config in YAML format:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```{.yml}
|
|
|
|
|
testWeights:
|
|
|
|
|
a: 300 # test with id 'a' has a weight of 300
|
|
|
|
|
b: 200
|
|
|
|
|
c: 100
|
|
|
|
|
d: 100
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Writing job configuration
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To run and evaluate an exercise the backend needs to know the steps how to do
|
|
|
|
|
that. This is different for each environment (operation system, programming
|
|
|
|
|
language, etc.), so each of the environments needs to have separate
|
|
|
|
|
configuration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Backend works with a powerful, but quite low level description of simple
|
|
|
|
|
connected tasks written in YAML syntax. More about the syntax and general task
|
|
|
|
|
overview can be found on [separate
|
|
|
|
|
page](https://github.com/ReCodEx/wiki/wiki/Assignments). One of the planned
|
|
|
|
|
features was user friendly configuration editor, but due to tight deadline and
|
|
|
|
|
team composition it did not make it to the first release. However, writing
|
|
|
|
|
configuration in the basic format will be always available and allows users to
|
|
|
|
|
use the full expressive power of the system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This section walks through creation of job configuration for _hello world_
|
|
|
|
|
exercise. The goal is to compile file _source.c_ and check if it prints `Hello
|
|
|
|
|
World!` to the standard output. This is the only test case, let's call it
|
|
|
|
|
**A**.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem can be split into several tasks:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- compile _source.c_ into _helloworld_ with `/usr/bin/gcc`
|
|
|
|
|
- run _helloworld_ and save standard output into _out.txt_
|
|
|
|
|
- fetch predefined output (suppose it is already uploaded to fileserver) with
|
|
|
|
|
hash `a0b65939670bc2c010f4d5d6a0b3e4e4590fb92b` to _reference.txt_
|
|
|
|
|
- compare _out.txt_ and _reference.txt_ by `/usr/bin/diff`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The absolute path of tools can be obtained from system administrator. However,
|
|
|
|
|
`/usr/bin/gcc` is location, where the GCC binary is available almost everywhere,
|
|
|
|
|
so location of some tools can be (professionally) guessed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, write header of the job to the configuration file.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```{.yml}
|
|
|
|
|
submission:
|
|
|
|
|
job-id: hello-word-job
|
|
|
|
|
hw-groups:
|
|
|
|
|
- group1
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basically it means, that the job _hello-world-job_ needs to be run on workers
|
|
|
|
|
that belong to the `group_1` hardware group . Reference files are downloaded
|
|
|
|
|
from the default location configured in API (such as
|
|
|
|
|
`http://localhost:9999/exercises`) if not stated explicitly otherwise. Job
|
|
|
|
|
execution log will not be saved to result archive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Next the tasks have to be constructed under _tasks_ section. In this demo job,
|
|
|
|
|
every task depends only on previous one. The first task has input file
|
|
|
|
|
_source.c_ (if submitted by user) already available in working directory, so
|
|
|
|
|
just call the GCC. Compilation is run in sandbox as any other external program
|
|
|
|
|
and should have relaxed time and memory limits. In this scenario, worker
|
|
|
|
|
defaults are used. If compilation fails, the whole job is immediately terminated
|
|
|
|
|
(because the _fatal-failure_ bit is set). Because _bound-directories_ option in
|
|
|
|
|
sandbox limits section is mostly shared between all tasks, it can be set in
|
|
|
|
|
worker configuration instead of job configuration (suppose this for following
|
|
|
|
|
tasks). For configuration of workers please contact your administrator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```{.yml}
|
|
|
|
|
- task-id: "compilation"
|
|
|
|
|
type: "initiation"
|
|
|
|
|
fatal-failure: true
|
|
|
|
|
cmd:
|
|
|
|
|
bin: "/usr/bin/gcc"
|
|
|
|
|
args:
|
|
|
|
|
- "source.c"
|
|
|
|
|
- "-o"
|
|
|
|
|
- "helloworld"
|
|
|
|
|
sandbox:
|
|
|
|
|
name: "isolate"
|
|
|
|
|
limits:
|
|
|
|
|
- hw-group-id: group1
|
|
|
|
|
chdir: ${EVAL_DIR}
|
|
|
|
|
bound-directories:
|
|
|
|
|
- src: ${SOURCE_DIR}
|
|
|
|
|
dst: ${EVAL_DIR}
|
|
|
|
|
mode: RW
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The compiled program is executed with time and memory limit set and the standard
|
|
|
|
|
output is redirected to a file. This task depends on _compilation_ task, because
|
|
|
|
|
the program cannot be executed without being compiled first. It is important to
|
|
|
|
|
mark this task with _execution_ type, so exceeded limits will be reported in
|
|
|
|
|
frontend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time and memory limits set directly for a task have higher priority than worker
|
|
|
|
|
defaults. One important constraint is, that these limits cannot exceed limits
|
|
|
|
|
set by workers. Worker defaults are present as a safety measure so that a
|
|
|
|
|
malformed job configuration cannot block the worker forever. Worker default
|
|
|
|
|
limits should be reasonably high, like a gigabyte of memory and several hours of
|
|
|
|
|
execution time. For exact numbers please contact your administrator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is important to know that if the output of a program (both standard and
|
|
|
|
|
error) is redirected to a file, the sandbox disk quotas apply to that file, as
|
|
|
|
|
well as the files created directly by the program. In case the outputs are
|
|
|
|
|
ignored, they are redirected to `/dev/null`, which means there is no limit on
|
|
|
|
|
the output length (as long as the printing fits in the time limit).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```{.yml}
|
|
|
|
|
- task-id: "execution_1"
|
|
|
|
|
test-id: "A"
|
|
|
|
|
type: "execution"
|
|
|
|
|
dependencies:
|
|
|
|
|
- compilation
|
|
|
|
|
cmd:
|
|
|
|
|
bin: "helloworld"
|
|
|
|
|
sandbox:
|
|
|
|
|
name: "isolate"
|
|
|
|
|
stdout: ${EVAL_DIR}/out.txt
|
|
|
|
|
limits:
|
|
|
|
|
- hw-group-id: group1
|
|
|
|
|
chdir: ${EVAL_DIR}
|
|
|
|
|
bound-directories:
|
|
|
|
|
- src: ${SOURCE_DIR}
|
|
|
|
|
dst: ${EVAL_DIR}
|
|
|
|
|
mode: RW
|
|
|
|
|
time: 0.5
|
|
|
|
|
memory: 8192
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fetch sample solution from file server. Base URL of file server is in the header
|
|
|
|
|
of the job configuration, so only the name of required file (its `sha1sum` in
|
|
|
|
|
our case) is necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```{.yml}
|
|
|
|
|
- task-id: "fetch_solution_1"
|
|
|
|
|
test-id: "A"
|
|
|
|
|
dependencies:
|
|
|
|
|
- execution
|
|
|
|
|
cmd:
|
|
|
|
|
bin: "fetch"
|
|
|
|
|
args:
|
|
|
|
|
- "a0b65939670bc2c010f4d5d6a0b3e4e4590fb92b"
|
|
|
|
|
- "${SOURCE_DIR}/reference.txt"
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comparison of results is quite straightforward. It is important to set the task
|
|
|
|
|
type to _evaluation_, so that the return code is set to 0 if the program is
|
|
|
|
|
correct and 1 otherwise. We do not set our own limits, so the default limits are
|
|
|
|
|
used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```{.yml}
|
|
|
|
|
- task-id: "judge_1"
|
|
|
|
|
test-id: "A"
|
|
|
|
|
type: "evaluation"
|
|
|
|
|
dependencies:
|
|
|
|
|
- fetch_solution_1
|
|
|
|
|
cmd:
|
|
|
|
|
bin: "/usr/bin/diff"
|
|
|
|
|
args:
|
|
|
|
|
- "out.txt"
|
|
|
|
|
- "reference.txt"
|
|
|
|
|
sandbox:
|
|
|
|
|
name: "isolate"
|
|
|
|
|
limits:
|
|
|
|
|
- hw-group-id: group1
|
|
|
|
|
chdir: ${EVAL_DIR}
|
|
|
|
|
bound-directories:
|
|
|
|
|
- src: ${SOURCE_DIR}
|
|
|
|
|
dst: ${EVAL_DIR}
|
|
|
|
|
mode: RW
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Implementation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Broker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@todo: gets stuff done, single point of failure and center point of ReCodEx universe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@todo: what to mention:
|
|
|
|
|
- job scheduling, worker queues
|
|
|
|
|
- API notification using curl, authentication using HTTP Basic Auth
|
|
|
|
|
- asynchronous resending progress messages
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Fileserver
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@todo: stores particular data from frontend and backend, hashing, HTTP API
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Worker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@todo: describe a bit of internal structure in general
|
|
|
|
|
- two threads
|
|
|
|
|
- number of ZeroMQ sockets, using it also for internal communication
|
|
|
|
|
- how sandboxes are fitted into worker, unix syscalls, #ifndef
|
|
|
|
|
- libcurl for fetchning, why not to use some object binding
|
|
|
|
|
- working with local filesystem, directory structure
|
|
|
|
|
- hardware groups in detail
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@todo: describe how jobs are generally executed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Runtime environments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ReCodEx is designed to utilize a rather diverse set of workers -- there can be
|
|
|
|
|
differences in many aspects, such as the actual hardware running the worker
|
|
|
|
|
(which impacts the results of measuring) or installed compilers, interpreters
|
|
|
|
|
and other tools needed for evaluation. To address these two examples in
|
|
|
|
|
particular, we assign runtime environments and hardware groups to exercises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The purpose of runtime environments is to specify which tools (and often also
|
|
|
|
|
operating system) are required to evaluate a solution of the exercise -- for
|
|
|
|
|
example, a C# programming exercise can be evaluated on a Linux worker running
|
|
|
|
|
Mono or a Windows worker with the .NET runtime. Such exercise would be assigned
|
|
|
|
|
two runtime environments, `Linux+Mono` and `Windows+.NET` (the environment names
|
|
|
|
|
are arbitrary strings configured by the administrator).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A hardware group is a set of workers that run on similar hardware (e.g. a
|
|
|
|
|
particular quad-core processor model and a SSD hard drive). Workers are assigned
|
|
|
|
|
to these groups by the administrator. If this is done correctly, performance
|
|
|
|
|
measurements of a submission should yield the same results. Thanks to this fact,
|
|
|
|
|
we can use the same resource limits on every worker in a hardware group.
|
|
|
|
|
However, limits can differ between runtime environments -- formally speaking,
|
|
|
|
|
limits are a function of three arguments: an assignment, a hardware group and a
|
|
|
|
|
runtime environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Directories and files
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For each job execution unique directory structure is created. Job is not
|
|
|
|
|
restricted to use only specified directories (tasks can do whatever is allowed
|
|
|
|
|
on system), but it is advised to use them inside a job. Following directories
|
|
|
|
|
are created under working directory of the worker for a job execution. This
|
|
|
|
|
directory is configurable and can be the same for multiple worker instances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- `downloads/${WORKER_ID}/${JOB_ID}` -- where the downloaded archive is saved
|
|
|
|
|
- `submission/${WORKER_ID}/${JOB_ID}` -- decompressed submission is stored here
|
|
|
|
|
- `eval/${WORKER_ID}/${JOB_ID}` -- this directory is accessible in job
|
|
|
|
|
configuration using variables and all execution should happen here
|
|
|
|
|
- `temp/${WORKER_ID}/${JOB_ID}` -- directory where all sort of temporary files
|
|
|
|
|
can be stored
|
|
|
|
|
- `results/${WORKER_ID}/${JOB_ID}` -- again accessible directory from job
|
|
|
|
|
configuration which is used to store all files which will be upload on
|
|
|
|
|
fileserver, usually there will be only yaml result file and optionally log,
|
|
|
|
|
every other file has to be copied here explicitly from job
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Judges interface
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For future extensibility is critical that judges have some shared interface of
|
|
|
|
|
calling and return values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Parameters: There are two mandatory positional parameters which has to be
|
|
|
|
|
files for comparision
|
|
|
|
|
- Results:
|
|
|
|
|
- _comparison OK_
|
|
|
|
|
- exitcode: 0
|
|
|
|
|
- stdout: there is one line with double value which should be set to 1.0
|
|
|
|
|
- _comparison BAD_
|
|
|
|
|
- exitcode: 1
|
|
|
|
|
- stdout: there is one line with double value which should be percentage
|
|
|
|
|
of correctness of quality of two given files
|
|
|
|
|
- _error during execution_
|
|
|
|
|
- exitcode: 2
|
|
|
|
|
- stderr: there should be description of error
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Monitor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitor is optional part of the ReCodEx solution for reporting progress of job
|
|
|
|
|
evaluation back to users in the real time. It is written in Python, tested
|
|
|
|
|
versions are 3.4 and 3.5. There is just one monitor instance required per
|
|
|
|
|
broker. Also, monitor has to be publicly visible (has to have public IP address
|
|
|
|
|
or be behind public proxy server) and also needs a connection to the broker. If
|
|
|
|
|
the web application is using HTTPS, it is required to use a proxy for monitor to
|
|
|
|
|
provide encryption over WebSockets. If this is not done, browsers of the users
|
|
|
|
|
will block unencrypted connection and will not show the progress to the users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Message flow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Message flow inside monitor](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ReCodEx/wiki/master/images/Monitor_arch.png)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitor runs in 2 threads. _Thread 1_ is the main thread, which initializes all
|
|
|
|
|
components (logger for example), starts the other thread and runs the ZeroMQ
|
|
|
|
|
part of the application. This thread receives and parses incomming messages from
|
|
|
|
|
broker and forwards them to _thread 2_ sending logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_Thread 2_ is responsible for managing all of WebSocket connections
|
|
|
|
|
asynchronously. Whole thread is one big _asyncio_ event loop through which all
|
|
|
|
|
actions are processed. None of custom data types in Python are thread-safe, so
|
|
|
|
|
all events from other threads (actually only `send_message` method invocation)
|
|
|
|
|
must be called within the event loop (via `asyncio.loop.call_soon_threadsafe`
|
|
|
|
|
function). Please note, that most of the Python interpreters use [Global
|
|
|
|
|
Interpreter Lock](https://wiki.python.org/moin/GlobalInterpreterLock), so there
|
|
|
|
|
is actualy no parallelism in the performance point of view, but proper
|
|
|
|
|
synchronization is still required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Handling of incomming messages
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incomming ZeroMQ progress message is received and parsed to JSON format (same as
|
|
|
|
|
our WebSocket communication format). JSON string is then passed to _thread 2_
|
|
|
|
|
for asynchronous sending. Each message has an identifier of channel where to
|
|
|
|
|
send it to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There can be multiple receivers to one channel id. Each one has separate
|
|
|
|
|
_asyncio.Queue_ instance where new messages are added. In addition to that,
|
|
|
|
|
there is one list of all messages per channel. If a client connects a bit later
|
|
|
|
|
than the point when monitor starts to receive messages, it will receive all
|
|
|
|
|
messages from the beginning. Messages are stored 5 minutes after last progress
|
|
|
|
|
command (normally FINISHED) is received, then are permanently deleted. This
|
|
|
|
|
caching mechanism was implemented because early testing shows, that first couple
|
|
|
|
|
of messages are missed quite often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Messages from client's queue are sent through corresponding WebSocket connection
|
|
|
|
|
via main event loop as soon as possible. This approach with separate queue per
|
|
|
|
|
connection is easy to implement and guarantees reliability and order of message
|
|
|
|
|
delivery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Cleaner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@todo: if it is something what to say here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## REST API
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@todo: what to mention
|
|
|
|
|
- basic - GET, POST, JSON, Header, ...
|
|
|
|
|
- endpoint structure, Swager UI
|
|
|
|
|
- handling requests, preflight, checking roles with annotation
|
|
|
|
|
- Uploading files and file storage - one by one upload endpoint. Explain
|
|
|
|
|
different types of the Uploaded files.
|
|
|
|
|
- Automatic detection of the runtime environment - users must submit
|
|
|
|
|
correctly named files, assuming the RTE from the extensions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Used technologies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@todo: PHP7 – how it is used for typehints, Nette framework – how it is
|
|
|
|
|
used for routing, Presenters actions endpoints, exceptions and
|
|
|
|
|
ErrorPresenter, Doctrine 2 – database abstraction, entities and
|
|
|
|
|
repositories + conventions, Communication over ZMQ – describe the
|
|
|
|
|
problem with the extension and how we reported it and how to treat it in
|
|
|
|
|
the future when the bug is solved. Relational database – we use MariaDB,
|
|
|
|
|
Doctine enables us to switch the engine to a different engine if needed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Data model
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@todo: Describe the code-first approach using the Doctrine entities, how
|
|
|
|
|
the entities map onto the database schema (refer to the attached schemas
|
|
|
|
|
of entities and relational database models), describe the logical
|
|
|
|
|
grouping of entities and how they are related:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- user + settings + logins + ACL
|
|
|
|
|
- instance + licences + groups + group membership
|
|
|
|
|
- exercise + assignments + localized assignments + runtime
|
|
|
|
|
environments + hardware groups
|
|
|
|
|
- submission + solution + reference solution + solution evaluation
|
|
|
|
|
- comment threads + comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Request handling
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A typical scenario for handling an API request is matching the HTTP request with
|
|
|
|
|
a corresponding handler routine which creates a response object, that is then
|
|
|
|
|
sent back to the client, encoded with JSON. The `Nette\Application` package can
|
|
|
|
|
be used to achieve this with Nette, although it is meant to be used mainly in
|
|
|
|
|
MVP applications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matching HTTP requests with handlers can be done using standard Nette URL
|
|
|
|
|
routing -- we will create a Nette route for each API endpoint. Using the routing
|
|
|
|
|
mechanism from Nette logically leads to implementing handler routines as Nette
|
|
|
|
|
Presenter actions. Each presenter should serve logically related endpoints.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The last step is encoding the response as JSON. In `Nette\Application`, HTTP
|
|
|
|
|
responses are returned using the `Presenter::sendResponse()` method. We decided
|
|
|
|
|
to write a method that calls `sendResponse` internally and takes care of the
|
|
|
|
|
encoding. This method has to be called in every presenter action. An alternative
|
|
|
|
|
approach would be using the internal payload object of the presenter, which is
|
|
|
|
|
more convenient, but provides us with less control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Authentication
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@todo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Permissions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In a system storing user data has to be implemented some kind of permission
|
|
|
|
|
checking. Each user has a role, which corresponds to his/her privileges.
|
|
|
|
|
Our research showed, that three roles are sufficient -- student, supervisor
|
|
|
|
|
and administrator. The user role has to be
|
|
|
|
|
checked with every request. The good points is, that roles nicely match with
|
|
|
|
|
granularity of API endpoints, so the permission checking can be done at the
|
|
|
|
|
beginning of each request. That is implemented using PHP annotations, which
|
|
|
|
|
allows to specify allowed user roles for each request with very little of code,
|
|
|
|
|
but all the business logic is the same, together in one place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, roles cannot cover all cases. For example, if user is a supervisor, it
|
|
|
|
|
relates only to groups, where he/she is a supervisor. But using only roles
|
|
|
|
|
allows him/her to act as supervisor in all groups in the system. Unfortunately,
|
|
|
|
|
this cannot be easily fixed using some annotations, because there are many
|
|
|
|
|
different cases when this problem occurs. To fix that, some additional checks
|
|
|
|
|
can be performed at the beginning of request processing. Usually it is only one
|
|
|
|
|
or two simple conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With this two concepts together it is possible to easily cover all cases of
|
|
|
|
|
permission checking with quite a small amount of code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Uploading files
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are two cases when users need to upload files using the API -- submitting
|
|
|
|
|
solutions to an assignment and creating a new exercise. In both of these cases,
|
|
|
|
|
the final destination of the files is the fileserver. However, the fileserver is
|
|
|
|
|
not publicly accessible, so the files have to be uploaded through the API.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each file is uploaded separately and is given a unique ID. The uploaded file
|
|
|
|
|
can then be attached to an exercise or a submitted solution of an exercise.
|
|
|
|
|
Storing and removing files from the server is done through the
|
|
|
|
|
`App\Helpers\UploadedFileStorage` class which maps the files to their records
|
|
|
|
|
in the database using the `App\Model\Entity\UploadedFile` entity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Forgotten password
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When user finds out that he/she does not remember a password, he/she requests a
|
|
|
|
|
password reset and fills in his/her unique email. A temporary access token is
|
|
|
|
|
generated for the user corresponding to the given email address and sent to this
|
|
|
|
|
address encoded in a URL leading to a client application. User then goes
|
|
|
|
|
to the URL and can choose a new password.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The temporary token is generated and emailed by the
|
|
|
|
|
`App\Helpers\ForgottenPasswordHelper` class which is registered as a service
|
|
|
|
|
and can be injected into any presenter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This solution is quite safe and user can handle it on its own, so administrator
|
|
|
|
|
does not have to worry about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Job configuration parsing and modifying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@todo how the YAML is parsed
|
|
|
|
|
@todo how it can be changed and where it is used
|
|
|
|
|
@todo how it can be stored to a new YAML
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Solution loading
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a solution evaluation is finished by the backend, the results are saved to
|
|
|
|
|
the fileserver and the API is notified by the broker. The results are parsed and
|
|
|
|
|
stored in the database.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For results of reference solutions' evaluations and for asynchronous solution
|
|
|
|
|
evaluations (e.g., resubmitted by the administrator) the result is processed
|
|
|
|
|
right after the notification from backend is received and the author of the
|
|
|
|
|
solution will be notified by an email.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a student submits his/her solution directly through the client application
|
|
|
|
|
we do not parse the results right away but we postpone this until the student
|
|
|
|
|
(or a supervisor) wants to display the results for the first time. This may save
|
|
|
|
|
save some resources when the solution results are not important (e.g., the
|
|
|
|
|
student finds a bug in his solution before the submission has been evaluated).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Parsing of the results
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The results are stored in a YAML file. We map the contents of the file to the
|
|
|
|
|
classes of the `App\Helpers\EvaluationResults` namespace. This process
|
|
|
|
|
validates the file and gives us access to all of the information through
|
|
|
|
|
an interface of a class and not only using associative arrays. This is very
|
|
|
|
|
similar to how the job configuration files are processed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## API endpoints
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@todo: Tell the user about the generated API reference and how the
|
|
|
|
|
Swagger UI can be used to access the API directly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Web application
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@todo: what to mention:
|
|
|
|
|
- used libraries, JSX, ...
|
|
|
|
|
- usage in user doc
|
|
|
|
|
- server side rendering
|
|
|
|
|
- maybe more ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Communication protocol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Detailed communication inside the ReCodEx system is captured in the following
|
|
|
|
|
image and described in sections below. Red connections are through ZeroMQ
|
|
|
|
|
sockets, blue are through WebSockets and green are through HTTP(S). All ZeroMQ
|
|
|
|
|
messages are sent as multipart with one string (command, option) per part, with
|
|
|
|
|
no empty frames (unles explicitly specified otherwise).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Communication schema](https://github.com/ReCodEx/wiki/raw/master/images/Backend_Connections.png)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Broker - Worker communication
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Broker acts as server when communicating with worker. Listening IP address and
|
|
|
|
|
port are configurable, protocol family is TCP. Worker socket is of DEALER type,
|
|
|
|
|
broker one is ROUTER type. Because of that, very first part of every (multipart)
|
|
|
|
|
message from broker to worker must be target worker's socket identity (which is
|
|
|
|
|
saved on its **init** command).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Commands from broker to worker:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **eval** -- evaluate a job. Requires 3 message frames:
|
|
|
|
|
- `job_id` -- identifier of the job (in ASCII representation -- we avoid
|
|
|
|
|
endianness issues and also support alphabetic ids)
|
|
|
|
|
- `job_url` -- URL of the archive with job configuration and submitted
|
|
|
|
|
source code
|
|
|
|
|
- `result_url` -- URL where the results should be stored after evaluation
|
|
|
|
|
- **intro** -- introduce yourself to the broker (with **init** command) -- this
|
|
|
|
|
is required when the broker loses track of the worker who sent the command.
|
|
|
|
|
Possible reasons for such event are e.g. that one of the communicating sides
|
|
|
|
|
shut down and restarted without the other side noticing.
|
|
|
|
|
- **pong** -- reply to **ping** command, no arguments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Commands from worker to broker:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **init** -- introduce self to the broker. Useful on startup or after
|
|
|
|
|
reestablishing lost connection. Requires at least 2 arguments:
|
|
|
|
|
- `hwgroup` -- hardware group of this worker
|
|
|
|
|
- `header` -- additional header describing worker capabilities. Format must
|
|
|
|
|
be `header_name=value`, every header shall be in a separate message frame.
|
|
|
|
|
There is no limit on number of headers. There is also an optional third
|
|
|
|
|
argument -- additional information. If present, it should be separated
|
|
|
|
|
from the headers with an empty frame. The format is the same as headers.
|
|
|
|
|
Supported keys for additional information are:
|
|
|
|
|
- `description` -- a human readable description of the worker for
|
|
|
|
|
administrators (it will show up in broker logs)
|
|
|
|
|
- `current_job` -- an identifier of a job the worker is now processing. This
|
|
|
|
|
is useful when we are reassembling a connection to the broker and need it
|
|
|
|
|
to know the worker will not accept a new job.
|
|
|
|
|
- **done** -- notifying of finished job. Contains following message frames:
|
|
|
|
|
- `job_id` -- identifier of finished job
|
|
|
|
|
- `result` -- response result, possible values are:
|
|
|
|
|
- OK -- evaluation finished successfully
|
|
|
|
|
- FAILED -- job failed and cannot be reassigned to another worker (e.g.
|
|
|
|
|
due to error in configuration)
|
|
|
|
|
- INTERNAL_ERROR -- job failed due to internal worker error, but another
|
|
|
|
|
worker might be able to process it (e.g. downloading a file failed)
|
|
|
|
|
- `message` -- a human readable error message
|
|
|
|
|
- **progress** -- notice about current evaluation progress. Contains following
|
|
|
|
|
message frames:
|
|
|
|
|
- `job_id` -- identifier of current job
|
|
|
|
|
- `command` -- what is happening now.
|
|
|
|
|
- DOWNLOADED -- submission successfuly fetched from fileserver
|
|
|
|
|
- FAILED -- something bad happened and job was not executed at all
|
|
|
|
|
- UPLOADED -- results are uploaded to fileserver
|
|
|
|
|
- STARTED -- evaluation of tasks started
|
|
|
|
|
- ENDED -- evaluation of tasks is finished
|
|
|
|
|
- ABORTED -- evaluation of job encountered internal error, job will be
|
|
|
|
|
rescheduled to another worker
|
|
|
|
|
- FINISHED -- whole execution is finished and worker ready for another
|
|
|
|
|
job execution
|
|
|
|
|
- TASK -- task state changed -- see below
|
|
|
|
|
- `task_id` -- only present for "TASK" state -- identifier of task in
|
|
|
|
|
current job
|
|
|
|
|
- `task_state` -- only present for "TASK" state -- result of task
|
|
|
|
|
evaluation. One of:
|
|
|
|
|
- COMPLETED -- task was successfully executed without any error,
|
|
|
|
|
subsequent task will be executed
|
|
|
|
|
- FAILED -- task ended up with some error, subsequent task will be
|
|
|
|
|
skipped
|
|
|
|
|
- SKIPPED -- some of the previous dependencies failed to execute, so
|
|
|
|
|
this task will not be executed at all
|
|
|
|
|
- **ping** -- tell broker I am alive, no arguments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Heartbeating
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is important for the broker and workers to know if the other side is still
|
|
|
|
|
working (and connected). This is achieved with a simple heartbeating protocol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The protocol requires the workers to send a **ping** command regularly (the
|
|
|
|
|
interval is configurable on both sides -- future releases might let the worker
|
|
|
|
|
send its ping interval with the **init** command). Upon receiving a **ping**
|
|
|
|
|
command, the broker responds with **pong**.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whenever a heartbeating message doesn't arrive, a counter called _liveness_ is
|
|
|
|
|
decreased. When this counter drops to zero, the other side is considered
|
|
|
|
|
disconnected. When a message arrives, the liveness counter is set back to its
|
|
|
|
|
maximum value, which is configurable for both sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the broker decides a worker disconnected, it tries to reschedule its jobs
|
|
|
|
|
to other workers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a worker thinks the broker crashed, it tries to reconnect periodically, with
|
|
|
|
|
a bounded, exponentially increasing delay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This protocol proved great robustness in real world testing. Thus whole backend
|
|
|
|
|
is reliable and can outlive short term issues with connection without problems.
|
|
|
|
|
Also, increasing delay of ping messages does not flood the network when there
|
|
|
|
|
are problems. We experienced no issues since we are using this protocol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Worker - File Server communication
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worker is communicating with file server only from _execution thread_. Supported
|
|
|
|
|
protocol is HTTP optionally with SSL encryption (**recommended**). If supported
|
|
|
|
|
by server and used version of libcurl, HTTP/2 standard is also available. File
|
|
|
|
|
server should be set up to require basic HTTP authentication and worker is
|
|
|
|
|
capable to send corresponding credentials with each request.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Worker side
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Workers comunicate with the file server in both directions -- they download
|
|
|
|
|
student's submissions and then upload evaluation results. Internally, worker is
|
|
|
|
|
using libcurl C library with very similar setup. In both cases it can verify
|
|
|
|
|
HTTPS certificate (on Linux against system cert list, on Windows against
|
|
|
|
|
downloaded one from CURL website during installation), support basic HTTP
|
|
|
|
|
authentication, offer HTTP/2 with fallback to HTTP/1.1 and fail on error
|
|
|
|
|
(returned HTTP status code is >=400). Worker have list of credentials to all
|
|
|
|
|
available file servers in its config file.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- download file -- standard HTTP GET request to given URL expecting file content
|
|
|
|
|
as response
|
|
|
|
|
- upload file -- standard HTTP PUT request to given URL with file data as body
|
|
|
|
|
-- same as command line tool `curl` with option `--upload-file`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### File server side
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
File server has its own internal directory structure, where all the files are
|
|
|
|
|
stored. It provides simple REST API to get them or create new ones. File server
|
|
|
|
|
does not provide authentication or secured connection by itself, but it is
|
|
|
|
|
supposed to run file server as WSGI script inside a web server (like Apache)
|
|
|
|
|
with proper configuration. Relevant commands for communication with workers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **GET /submission_archives/\<id\>.\<ext\>** -- gets an archive with submitted
|
|
|
|
|
source code and corresponding configuration of this job evaluation
|
|
|
|
|
- **GET /exercises/\<hash\>** -- gets a file, common usage is for input files or
|
|
|
|
|
reference result files
|
|
|
|
|
- **PUT /results/\<id\>.\<ext\>** -- upload archive with evaluation results
|
|
|
|
|
under specified name (should be same _id_ as name of submission archive). On
|
|
|
|
|
successful upload returns JSON `{ "result": "OK" }` as body of returned page.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If not specified otherwise, `zip` format of archives is used. Symbol `/` in API
|
|
|
|
|
description is root of file server's domain. If the domain is for example
|
|
|
|
|
`fs.recodex.org` with SSL support, getting input file for one task could look as
|
|
|
|
|
GET request to
|
|
|
|
|
`https://fs.recodex.org/tasks/8b31e12787bdae1b5766ebb8534b0adc10a1c34c`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Broker - Monitor communication
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Broker communicates with monitor also through ZeroMQ over TCP protocol. Type of
|
|
|
|
|
socket is same on both sides, ROUTER. Monitor is set to act as server in this
|
|
|
|
|
communication, its IP address and port are configurable in monitor's config
|
|
|
|
|
file. ZeroMQ socket ID (set on monitor's side) is "recodex-monitor" and must be
|
|
|
|
|
sent as first frame of every multipart message -- see ZeroMQ ROUTER socket
|
|
|
|
|
documentation for more info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that the monitor is designed so that it can receive data both from the
|
|
|
|
|
broker and workers. The current architecture prefers the broker to do all the
|
|
|
|
|
communication so that the workers do not have to know too many network services.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitor is treated as a somewhat optional part of whole solution, so no special
|
|
|
|
|
effort on communication realibility was made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Commands from monitor to broker:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because there is no need for the monitor to communicate with the broker, there
|
|
|
|
|
are no commands so far. Any message from monitor to broker is logged and
|
|
|
|
|
discarded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Commands from broker to monitor:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **progress** -- notification about progress with job evaluation. This
|
|
|
|
|
communication is only redirected as is from worker, more info can be found in
|
|
|
|
|
"Broker - Worker Communication" chapter above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Broker - Web API communication
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Broker communicates with main REST API through ZeroMQ connection over TCP.
|
|
|
|
|
Socket type on broker side is ROUTER, on frontend part it is DEALER. Broker acts
|
|
|
|
|
as a server, its IP address and port is configurable in the API.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Commands from API to broker:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **eval** -- evaluate a job. Requires at least 4 frames:
|
|
|
|
|
- `job_id` -- identifier of this job (in ASCII representation -- we avoid
|
|
|
|
|
endianness issues and also support alphabetic ids)
|
|
|
|
|
- `header` -- additional header describing worker capabilities. Format must
|
|
|
|
|
be `header_name=value`, every header shall be in a separate message frame.
|
|
|
|
|
There is no maximum limit on number of headers. There may be also no
|
|
|
|
|
headers at all. A worker is considered suitable for the job if and only if
|
|
|
|
|
it satisfies all of its headers.
|
|
|
|
|
- empty frame -- frame which contains only empty string and serves only as
|
|
|
|
|
breakpoint after headers
|
|
|
|
|
- `job_url` -- URI location of archive with job configuration and submitted
|
|
|
|
|
source code
|
|
|
|
|
- `result_url` -- remote URI where results will be pushed to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Commands from broker to API (all are responses to **eval** command):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **ack** -- this is first message which is sent back to frontend right after
|
|
|
|
|
eval command arrives, basically it means "Hi, I am all right and am capable of
|
|
|
|
|
receiving job requests", after sending this broker will try to find acceptable
|
|
|
|
|
worker for arrived request
|
|
|
|
|
- **accept** -- broker is capable of routing request to a worker
|
|
|
|
|
- **reject** -- broker cannot handle this job (for example when the requirements
|
|
|
|
|
specified by the headers cannot be met). There are (rare) cases when the
|
|
|
|
|
broker finds that it cannot handle the job after it was confirmed. In such
|
|
|
|
|
cases it uses the frontend REST API to mark the job as failed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Asynchronous communication between broker and API
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only a fraction of the errors that can happen during evaluation can be detected
|
|
|
|
|
while there is a ZeroMQ connection between the API and broker. To notify the
|
|
|
|
|
frontend of the rest, the API exposes an endpoint for the broker for this
|
|
|
|
|
purpose. Broker uses this endpoint whenever the status of a job changes
|
|
|
|
|
(it's finished, it failed permanently, the only worker capable of processing
|
|
|
|
|
it disconnected...).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a request for sending a report arrives from the backend then the type of
|
|
|
|
|
the report is inferred and if it is an error which deserves attention of the
|
|
|
|
|
administrator then an email is sent to him/her. There can also be errors which
|
|
|
|
|
are not that important (e.g., it was somehow solved by the backend itself or it
|
|
|
|
|
is only informative), then these do not have to be reported through an email but
|
|
|
|
|
they are stored in the persistent database for further consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the details of this interface please refer to the attached API documentation
|
|
|
|
|
and the `broker-reports/` endpoint group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### File Server - Web API communication
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
File server has a REST API for interaction with other parts of ReCodEx.
|
|
|
|
|
Description of communication with workers is in "Worker - File Server
|
|
|
|
|
Communication" chapter above. On top of that, there are other commands for
|
|
|
|
|
interaction with the API:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **GET /results/\<id\>.\<ext\>** -- download archive with evaluated results of
|
|
|
|
|
job _id_
|
|
|
|
|
- **POST /submissions/\<id\>** -- upload new submission with identifier _id_.
|
|
|
|
|
Expects that the body of the POST request uses file paths as keys and the
|
|
|
|
|
content of the files as values. On successful upload returns JSON `{
|
|
|
|
|
"archive_path": <archive_url>, "result_path": <result_url> }` in response
|
|
|
|
|
body. From _archive_path_ the submission can be downloaded (by worker) and
|
|
|
|
|
corresponding evaluation results should be uploaded to _result_path_.
|
|
|
|
|
- **POST /tasks** -- upload new files, which will be available by names equal to
|
|
|
|
|
`sha1sum` of their content. There can be uploaded more files at once. On
|
|
|
|
|
successful upload returns JSON `{ "result": "OK", "files": <file_list> }` in
|
|
|
|
|
response body, where _file_list_ is dictionary of original file name as key
|
|
|
|
|
and new URL with already hashed name as value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no plans yet to support deleting files from this API. This may change
|
|
|
|
|
in time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Web API calls these fileserver endpoints with standard HTTP requests. There are
|
|
|
|
|
no special commands involved. There is no communication in opposite direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Monitor - Web app communication
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitor interacts with web application through WebSocket connection. Monitor
|
|
|
|
|
acts as server and browsers are connecting to it. IP address and port are
|
|
|
|
|
configurable. When client connects to the monitor, it sends a message with
|
|
|
|
|
string representation of channel id (which messages are interested in, usually
|
|
|
|
|
id of evaluating job). There can be multiple listeners per channel, even
|
|
|
|
|
(shortly) delayed connections will receive all messages from the very beginning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When monitor receives **progress** message from broker there are two options:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- there is no WebSocket connection for listed channel (job id) -- message is
|
|
|
|
|
dropped
|
|
|
|
|
- there is active WebSocket connection for listed channel -- message is parsed
|
|
|
|
|
into JSON format (see below) and send as string to that established channel.
|
|
|
|
|
Messages for active connections are queued, so no messages are discarded even
|
|
|
|
|
on heavy workload.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message from monitor to web application is in JSON format and it has form of
|
|
|
|
|
dictionary (associative array). Information contained in this message should
|
|
|
|
|
correspond with the ones given by worker to broker. For further description
|
|
|
|
|
please read more in "Broker - Worker communication" chapter under "progress"
|
|
|
|
|
command.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message format:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **command** -- type of progress, one of: DOWNLOADED, FAILED, UPLOADED,
|
|
|
|
|
STARTED, ENDED, ABORTED, FINISHED, TASK
|
|
|
|
|
- **task_id** -- id of currently evaluated task. Present only if **command** is
|
|
|
|
|
"TASK".
|
|
|
|
|
- **task_state** -- state of task with id **task_id**. Present only if
|
|
|
|
|
**command** is "TASK". Value is one of "COMPLETED", "FAILED" and "SKIPPED".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Web app - Web API communication
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provided web application runs as javascript client inside user's browser. It
|
|
|
|
|
communicates with REST API on the server through standard HTTP requests.
|
|
|
|
|
Documentation of the main REST API is in separate
|
|
|
|
|
[document](https://recodex.github.io/api/) due to its extensiveness. Results are
|
|
|
|
|
returned as JSON payload, which is simply parsed in web application and
|
|
|
|
|
presented to the users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!---
|
|
|
|
|
// vim: set formatoptions=tqn flp+=\\\|^\\*\\s* textwidth=80 colorcolumn=+1:
|
|
|
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
|
|