Feature #9412

Updated by Evgeny Novikov about 2 years ago

The primary expert evaluation workflow should look as follows:
# Imagine
If there is no associated marks for a given report (Unsafe/Safe/Unknown).
# The expert needs to create a new mark.
# It becomes confirmed automatically for a given report and may be associated automatically
an error trace with some other reports.
# Then the expert proceeds to a next report.
# If there is no
several associated marks, the expert should do the same (1-3).
# If there are some automatically associated
marks and the expert finds one or more of them appropriate, the expert should confirm corresponding associations.
# Otherwise, the expert must create a new mark like in previous use cases (1-3, 5).

In any case there will be at least one
is confirmed association (in ideal, there should be the only confirmed association) for each report. And if there are confirmed associations, manually then Bridge should not treat automatically associated consider such error trace as having incompatible marks anyway.

Current behavior brings us to a situation
when calculating total verdict and total similarity. If there is no we can analyze all traces, manually confirm all marks, but later when somebody at analysis of an another job creates more marks then they ruin results of our first job transforming confirmed associations, Bridge should behave as it does now. marks into incompatible marks.