Programming exercises: Add feedback discussion feature to feedback analysis table

[az108]

Checklist

General

• I tested all changes and their related features with all corresponding user types on a test server.
• This is a small issue that I tested locally and was confirmed by another developer on a test server.
• Language: I followed the guidelines for inclusive, diversity-sensitive, and appreciative language.
• I chose a title conforming to the naming conventions for pull requests.

Server

• Important: I implemented the changes with a very good performance and prevented too many (unnecessary) and too complex database calls.
• I strictly followed the principle of data economy for all database calls.
• I strictly followed the server coding and design guidelines.
• I added multiple integration tests (Spring) related to the features (with a high test coverage).
• I added pre-authorization annotations according to the guidelines and checked the course groups for all new REST Calls (security).
• I documented the Java code using JavaDoc style.

Client

• Important: I implemented the changes with a very good performance, prevented too many (unnecessary) REST calls and made sure the UI is responsive, even with large data (e.g. using paging).
• I strictly followed the principle of data economy for all client-server REST calls.
• I strictly followed the client coding and design guidelines.
• Following the theming guidelines, I specified colors only in the theming variable files and checked that the changes look consistent in both the light and the dark theme.
• I added multiple integration tests (Jest) related to the features (with a high test coverage), while following the test guidelines.
• I added authorities to all new routes and checked the course groups for displaying navigation elements (links, buttons).
• I documented the TypeScript code using JSDoc style.
• I added multiple screenshots/screencasts of my UI changes.
• I translated all newly inserted strings into English and German.

Motivation and Context

This is a follow-up to the feature I’m working on: #9728. The goal is to provide instructors with clearer insights into the feedback given to students. In this PR, a “Feedback Discussion” modal has been introduced. This feature allows instructors to select specific feedback and open a communication channel for it, provided the course has one. For example, during an exam review, instructors can use this functionality to send messages that clarify certain mistakes, offering students a better understanding and clearer insights.

Description

A new server-side query has been implemented, which takes a feedbackDetailText input and creates a channel based on it, automatically adding all students who encountered the corresponding error. On the client side, instructors can now create these channels via a modal accessible on the far-right side of each feedback entry. This modal provides two options: instructors can either navigate directly to the newly created channel or remain on the feedback analysis page. Additionally, the modal allows instructors to specify the channel type, name, and description.

Steps for Testing

Prerequisites:

• 1 Instructor
• Student Sumbissions
• 1 Programming Exercise

1. Log in to Artemis
2. Navigate to a Course with Instructor rights
3. Create a Programming Exercise or use an existing one
4. Solve the Programming Exercise as Students, ideally with different kinds of Progress (You can use artemis test users for this)
5. Navigate as Instructor to the Grading of an Exercise
6. Navigate to the Feedback Analysis section
7. Verify that the table displays data correctly, and press the icon in a feedback table entry on the far right side to see the feedback-channel modal
8. Verify that the channel is created as specified and both creation methods work as intended. Also make sure that all affected students are added to the corresponding channel when creating it.

Testserver States

Note

These badges show the state of the test servers.
Green = Currently available, Red = Currently locked
Click on the badges to get to the test servers.

Review Progress

Performance Review

• I (as a reviewer) confirm that the client changes (in particular related to REST calls and UI responsiveness) are implemented with a very good performance even for very large courses with more than 2000 students.
• I (as a reviewer) confirm that the server changes (in particular related to database calls) are implemented with a very good performance even for very large courses with more than 2000 students.

Code Review

• Code Review 1
• Code Review 2

Manual Tests

• Test 1
• Test 2

Performance Tests

• Test 1
• Test 2

Test Coverage

(Will be updated after Code Reviews)

Class/File	Line Coverage	Confirmation (expect)
feedback-analysis.component.ts	98%	✅
feedback-analysis.service.ts	100%	✅
feedback-affected-students-modal.component.ts	93.54%	✅
Methods in ResultService	100%	✅
Methods in ResultResource	100%	✅

Screenshots

Before:

After:

Summary by CodeRabbit

Release Notes

• New Features

  • Introduced functionality to count students affected by specific feedback details.
  • Added endpoints for creating feedback-specific channels and managing feedback discussions.
  • New modals for confirming feedback channel creation and managing feedback details.

• Enhancements

  • Improved user interface with new labels and messages for feedback channels.
  • Enhanced feedback analysis component to support communication features.

• Bug Fixes

  • Various improvements to ensure robust error handling and user notifications.

• Documentation

  • Updated translations and user guidance for new features.

[b-fein]

There can also be test cases that are hidden to students (visibility NEVER or AFTER_DUE_DATE). From the screenshots it looks like the channel name and description are empty by default and completely up to the instructor. Can the channel metadata itself leak information otherwise? Should there be a warning note that this is secret test case in the confirmation dialogue to remind instructors to not accidentally reveal stuff in the channel name/description when creating the channel?

(We don’t use the communication feature, so I’m not familiar what potential revealing metadata a channel could have besides name and description.)

[raffifasaro]

It seems like the ParticipantScoreIntegrationTest server test is failing

[raffifasaro]

Code LGTM

[github-actions]

⚠️ Unable to deploy to test servers ⚠️

Testserver "artemis-test3.artemis.cit.tum.de" is already in use by PR #9815.

[az108]

@b-fein That is a good question, but I made sure to consider this by not adding too much default information to the channel itself and therefore forcing the instructors to fully decide on channel name and description. This only real information which is shown is which students are encountering a similar feedback error but not which testcase or taks its related to keeping the data anonymous.

[az108]

@b-fein And for the concern to leak testcases which are marked with visibility NEVER or AFTER_DUE_DATE. These testcases will not be part of the feedback analysis table in the first place as the students do not receive any feedback for such tests. The table only summarizes active feedback which was provided to the students and for that to happen, test cases must have ran over sumbissions and graded them. As this is not the case for after due date test cases thus no feedback for students is really generated and will not be part of the table till the test case eventually runs after the due date. Thus instructors can not leak any informations really. :)

[sachmii]

Tested on TS6, the features worked just fine.

[HawKhiem]

Tested on TS6. Everything works as described