Feature #9412

Updated by Evgeny Novikov about 2 years ago

The primary expert evaluation workflow should look as follows:
# Imagine 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 with some other reports.
# Then the expert proceeds to a next report.
# If there is no 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 confirmed association (in ideal, there should be the only confirmed association) for each report. And if there are confirmed associations, Bridge should not treat automatically associated marks when calculating total verdict and total similarity. If there is no confirmed associations, Bridge should behave as it does now.

PS: Let's exclude associations with 0% similarity from calculating total verdicts and similarity (inspired by #9413). This will improve a picture for automatically associated marks a bit since there will be less incompatible marks. But in general this will not help while the primary suggested feature will do. The pitfall may be confirmed associations with 0% similarity as it should be both used and not used in calculating total values according with various rules. I can hardly imagine cases when one will need to confirm associations with 0% similarity, but let's respect manual efforts (confirmation) first of all. So, let's calculate total values for confirmed associations with 0% similarity.

PPS: Let's exclude total similarity at all as like some other totals it is ambiguous. Some people likes one its semantics, other people prefers another one. But nobody will suffer much if there will be no total similarity at all since it is primarily useful just when considering particular error traces and their associated marks.

PPPS: I suggest to allow for mark authors to disable further mark changes. This will disable the only case (removing marks or changing them considerably) when somebody can affect evaluation of verification results made by mark authors. Of course, this does not include 3rd party marks which associations are confirmed.