Improvements

Rewritten-docs.md

@@ -665,33 +665,34 @@ state.
 
 There are lot of things which deserves discussion concerning results of
 evaluation, how they should be displayed, what should be visible or not and also
-some what kind of reward for users solutions should be chosen.
+what kind of reward for users solutions should be chosen.
 
 At first let us focus on all kinds of outputs from executed programs within job.
 Out of discussion is that supervisors should be able to view almost all outputs
 from solutions if they choose them to be visible and recorded. This feature is
 critical in debugging either whole exercises or users solutions. But should it
 be default behaviour to record every output? Absolutely not, supervisor should
-have choice to turn it on but defaults has to be not record it. Even without
+have a choice to turn it on, but discarding the outputs has to be the default
-this functionality can be file base around whole ReCodEx system quite large and
+option. Even without this functionality a file base around whole ReCodEx system
-on top of that outputs from executed programs can be sometimes very extensive.
+can become quite large and on top of that outputs from executed programs can be
-Storing this amount of data is purely nonsense to every solution. But if
+sometimes very extensive. Storing this amount of data is inefficient and
-requested by supervisor then this feature should be available.
+unnecessary to most of the solutions. However, on supervisor request this
-
+feature should be available.
-Question what should regular users see from execution of their solution is more
+
-interesting. Simple answer is of course that they should not see anything which
+More interesting question is what should regular users see from execution of
-is partly true. Outputs from their programs can be anything and users can
+their solution. Simple answer is of course that they should not see anything
-somehow analyse inputs or even redirect them to output. So outputs from
+which is partly true. Outputs from their programs can be anything and users can
+somehow analyze inputs or even redirect them to output. So outputs from
 execution should not be visible at all or under very special circumstances. But
-that is not so straighforward for compilation or other kinds of initiation.
+that is not so straightforward for compilation or other kinds of initiation,
-Well, this is another story, it really depends on the particular case. But
+where it really depends on the particular case. Generally it is quite harmless
-generally it is quite harmless to display user some kind of compilation error
+to display user some kind of compilation error which can help a lot during
-which can help a lot during troubleshooting. Of course again this kind of
+troubleshooting. Of course again this kind of functionality should be
-functionality should be configurable by supervisors and disabled by default.
+configurable by supervisors and disabled by default. There is also the last kind
-There is also the last kind of tasks which can output some information which is
+of tasks which can output some information which is evaluation tasks. Output of
-evaluation tasks. Output of these tasks is somehow important to whole system and
+these tasks is somehow important to whole system and again can contain some
-again can contain some information about inputs or reference outputs. So outputs
+information about inputs or reference outputs. So outputs of evaluation tasks
-of evaluation tasks should not be visible to regular users too.
+should not be visible to regular users too.
 
 The overall concept of grading solutions was presented earlier. To briefly
 remind that, backend returns only exact measured values (used time and memory,
@@ -702,19 +703,20 @@ 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 boolean succeeded/failed, optionaly has weight), some kind of
+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
-apropriate interface and implement only weighted arithmetic mean computation,
+appropriate interface and implement only weighted arithmetic mean computation,
-which is used in about 90% of all assignments. Of course, diferent scheme can be
+which is used in about 90% of all assignments. Of course, different scheme can
-chosen for every assignment and also configured -- for example test weights can
+be chosen for every assignment and also can be configured -- for example
-be specified for implemented weighted arithmetic mean. Advanced ways of
+specifying test weights for implemented weighted arithmetic mean. Advanced ways
-computation can be implemented on demand when is a real demand for them.
+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 he solution is to get less points than specified, it will get zero
+specified. It the solution is to get less points than specified, it will get
-points instead. This functionality can be empedded into grading computation
+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 a bit ugly. So, this feature is separated from point
 computation.
@@ -722,14 +724,14 @@ 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. Generaly the solution with
+of bonus points. They can be positive or negative. Generally the solution with
-the most assigned points is marked for grading that particular solution.
+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. But to prevent
+cheating, ...) he/she assigns the student negative bonus points. To prevent
-chosing another solution with more points by the system or even submitting the
+overriding this decision by system choosing another solution with more points or
-same code again which is worth more points by students, supervisor can mark a
+even student submitting the same code again which evaluates to more points,
-particular solution as marked and used for grading instead of solution with the
+supervisor can mark a particular solution as marked and used for grading instead
-most points.
+of solution with the most points.
 
 ### Persistence
 
@@ -752,19 +754,19 @@ 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 logaritmic time
-complexity to number of saved values). This practicaly excludes plain files, so
+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
-submited sources by students. Saving this kind of data into relational database
+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 equaly good, final decission depends on actual case.
+approaches are equally good, final decision depends on actual case.
 
 
 ## Structure of the project
@@ -856,10 +858,10 @@ also possible to develop their own frontend with their own user management
 system for their specific needs and use the possibilities of the backend without
 any changes, as was mentioned in the previous paragraphs.
 
-One possible configuration of ReCodEx system is ilustrated on following picture,
+One possible configuration of ReCodEx system is illustrated on following
-where thete is one shared backend with three workers and two separate instances
+picture, where there is one shared backend with three workers and two separate
-of whole frontend. This configuration may be suitable for MFF UK -- basic
+instances of whole frontend. This configuration may be suitable for MFF UK --
-programming course and KSP competition. But maybe even sharing web API and
+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.
@@ -1068,7 +1070,7 @@ as network communication which is quite handy and solves problems with threads
 synchronization and such.
 
 At this point we have worker with two internal parts listening one and execution
-one. Implementation of first one is quite straighforward and clear. So lets
+one. Implementation of first one is quite straightforward and clear. So lets
 discuss what should be happening in execution subsystem. 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
@@ -1376,7 +1378,7 @@ following picture.
 ![Message flow inside montior](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ReCodEx/wiki/master/images/Monitor_arch.png)
 
 The message channel inputing the monitor uses ZeroMQ as main message framework
-used by backend. This decision keeps rest of backend avare of used
+used by backend. This decision keeps rest of backend aware of used
 communication protocol and related libraries. Output channel is WebSocket as a
 protocol for sending messages to web browsers. In Python, there are several
 WebSocket libraries. The most popular one is `websockets` in cooperation with
@@ -1403,8 +1405,8 @@ We considered several technologies which could be used:
   the features we need when some additional extensions are installed (to support
   LDAP or ZeroMQ).
 - ASP.NET (C#), JSP (Java) -- these technologies are very robust and are used to
-  create server technologies in many big enterpises. Both can run on Windows and
+  create server technologies in many big enterprises. Both can run on Windows
-  Linux servers (ASP.NET using the .NET Core).
+  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