Merge branch 'master' into sanchez/TIM-171-Submission-UI

.gitignore

@@ -42,3 +42,6 @@ nosetests.xml
 # some mac thing
 .DS_Store
 
+# PyCharm
+.idea
+

apps/openassessment/peer/admin.py

 from django.contrib import admin
 
-from openassessment.peer.models import PeerEvaluation
+from openassessment.peer.models import Assessment, AssessmentPart, Rubric, Criterion, CriterionOption
+
+admin.site.register(Assessment)
+admin.site.register(AssessmentPart)
+admin.site.register(Rubric)
+admin.site.register(Criterion)
+admin.site.register(CriterionOption)
 
-admin.site.register(PeerEvaluation)

apps/openassessment/peer/api.py

@@ -6,12 +6,14 @@ the workflow for a given submission.
 """
 import copy
 import logging
+import math
 
 from django.db import DatabaseError
-import math
-from openassessment.peer.models import PeerEvaluation
 
-from openassessment.peer.serializers import PeerAssessmentSerializer
+from openassessment.peer.models import Assessment
+from openassessment.peer.serializers import (
+    AssessmentSerializer, RubricSerializer, rubric_from_dict
+)
 from submissions import api as submission_api
 from submissions.models import Submission, StudentItem, Score
 from submissions.serializers import SubmissionSerializer, StudentItemSerializer
@@ -70,6 +72,7 @@ def create_assessment(
         required_assessments_for_student,
         required_assessments_for_submission,
         assessment_dict,
+        rubric_dict,
         scored_at=None):
     """Creates an assessment on the given submission.
 
@@ -122,18 +125,23 @@ def create_assessment(
     """
     try:
         submission = Submission.objects.get(uuid=submission_uuid)
+
+        rubric = rubric_from_dict(rubric_dict)
+        option_ids = rubric.options_ids(assessment_dict["options_selected"])
         peer_assessment = {
+            "rubric": rubric.id,
             "scorer_id": scorer_id,
             "submission": submission.pk,
-            "points_earned": sum(assessment_dict["points_earned"]),
-            "points_possible": assessment_dict["points_possible"],
+            #"points_earned": sum(assessment_dict["points_earned"]),
+            #"points_possible": assessment_dict["points_possible"],
             "score_type": PEER_TYPE,
-            "feedback": assessment_dict["feedback"],
+            "parts": [{"option": option_id} for option_id in option_ids]
         }
         if scored_at:
             peer_assessment["scored_at"] = scored_at
 
-        peer_serializer = PeerAssessmentSerializer(data=peer_assessment)
+        peer_serializer = AssessmentSerializer(data=peer_assessment)
+
         if not peer_serializer.is_valid():
             raise PeerAssessmentRequestError(peer_serializer.errors)
         peer_serializer.save()
@@ -195,7 +203,7 @@ def _score_if_finished(student_item,
         student_item.student_id,
         required_assessments_for_student
     )
-    assessments = PeerEvaluation.objects.filter(submission=submission)
+    assessments = Assessment.objects.filter(submission=submission)
     submission_finished = assessments.count() >= required_assessments_for_submission
     scores = []
     for assessment in assessments:
@@ -260,7 +268,7 @@ def has_finished_required_evaluating(student_id, required_assessments):
     if required_assessments < 0:
         raise PeerAssessmentRequestError(
             "Required Assessment count must be a positive integer.")
-    return PeerEvaluation.objects.filter(
+    return Assessment.objects.filter(
         scorer_id=student_id
     ).count() >= required_assessments
 
@@ -308,8 +316,8 @@ def get_assessments(submission_id):
     """
     try:
         submission = Submission.objects.get(uuid=submission_id)
-        assessments = PeerEvaluation.objects.filter(submission=submission)
-        serializer = PeerAssessmentSerializer(assessments, many=True)
+        assessments = Assessment.objects.filter(submission=submission)
+        serializer = AssessmentSerializer(assessments, many=True)
         return serializer.data
     except DatabaseError:
         error_message = (
@@ -391,7 +399,7 @@ def _get_first_submission_not_evaluated(student_items, student_id, required_num_
         "-attempt_number"
     )
     for submission in submissions:
-        assessments = PeerEvaluation.objects.filter(submission=submission)
+        assessments = Assessment.objects.filter(submission=submission)
         if assessments.count() < required_num_assessments:
             already_evaluated = False
             for assessment in assessments:

apps/openassessment/peer/models.py

+# coding=utf-8
 """
-This would hold models related to the peer response workflow. There's going to
-be a lot here, like rubrics and such.
-
+These models have to capture not only the state of assessments made for certain
+submissions, but also the state of the rubrics at the time those assessments
+were made.
 """
+from copy import deepcopy
+from hashlib import sha1
+import json
+
 from django.db import models
 from django.utils.timezone import now
 
 from submissions.models import Submission
 
 
-class PeerEvaluation(models.Model):
+class Rubric(models.Model):
+    """A Rubric contains the guidelines on how to assess a submission.
+
+    Rubrics are composed of :class:`Criterion` objects which are in turn
+    composed of :class:`CriterionOption` objects.
+
+    This model is a bit unusual in that it is the representation of the rubric
+    that an assessment was made with *at the time of assessment*. The source
+    rubric data lives in the problem definition, which is in the
+    :class:`OpenAssessmentBlock`. When an assessment is made, the XBlock passes
+    that rubric information along as well. When this Django app records the
+    :class:`Assessment`, we do a lookup to see if the Rubric model object
+    already exists (using hashing). If the Rubric is not found, we create a new
+    one with the information OpenAssessmentBlock has passed in.
+
+    .. warning::
+       Never change Rubric model data after it's written!
+
+    The little tree of objects that compose a Rubric is meant to be immutable —
+    once created, they're never updated. When the problem changes, we end up
+    creating a new Rubric instead. This makes it easy to cache and do hash-based
+    lookups.
+    """
+    # SHA1 hash
+    content_hash = models.CharField(max_length=40, unique=True, db_index=True)
+
+    @property
+    def points_possible(self):
+        """The total number of points that could be earned in this Rubric."""
+        criteria_points = [crit.points_possible for crit in self.criteria.all()]
+        return sum(criteria_points) if criteria_points else 0
+
+    @staticmethod
+    def content_hash_from_dict(rubric_dict):
+        """Given a dict of rubric information, return a unique hash.
+
+        This is a static method because we want to provide the `content_hash`
+        when we create the rubric -- i.e. before the Rubric object could know or
+        access its child criteria or options. In Django, when you add child
+        elements to a model object using a foreign key relation, it will
+        immediately persist to the database. But in order to persist to the
+        database, the child object needs to have the ID of the parent, meaning
+        that Rubric would have to have already been created and persisted.
+        """
+        rubric_dict = deepcopy(rubric_dict)
+
+        # Neither "id" nor "content_hash" would count towards calculating the
+        # content_hash.
+        rubric_dict.pop("id", None)
+        rubric_dict.pop("content_hash", None)
+
+        canonical_form = json.dumps(rubric_dict, sort_keys=True)
+        return sha1(canonical_form).hexdigest()
+
+    def options_ids(self, options_selected):
+        """Given a mapping of selected options, return the option IDs.
+
+        We use this to map user selection during assessment to the
+        :class:`CriterionOption` IDs that are in our database. These IDs are
+        never shown to the user.
+
+        Args:
+            options_selected (dict): Mapping of criteria names to the names of
+                the option that was selected for that criterion.
+
+        Examples:
+            >>> options_selected = {"secret": "yes", "safe": "no"}
+            >>> rubric.options_ids(options_selected)
+            [10, 12]
+
+        """
+        # TODO: cache this
+        crit_to_all_opts = {
+            crit.name : {
+                option.name: option.id for option in crit.options.all()
+            }
+            for crit in self.criteria.all()
+        }
+
+        return [
+            crit_to_all_opts[crit][opt]
+            for crit, opt in options_selected.items()
+        ]
+
+
+class Criterion(models.Model):
+    """A single aspect of a submission that needs assessment.
+
+    As an example, an essay might be assessed separately for accuracy, brevity,
+    and clarity. Each of those would be separate criteria.
+
+    All Rubrics have at least one Criterion.
+    """
+    rubric = models.ForeignKey(Rubric, related_name="criteria")
+
+    name = models.CharField(max_length=100, blank=False)
+
+    # 0-based order in the Rubric
+    order_num = models.PositiveIntegerField()
+
+    # What are we asking the reviewer to evaluate in this Criterion?
+    prompt = models.TextField(max_length=10000)
+
+    class Meta:
+        ordering = ["rubric", "order_num"]
+
+    @property
+    def points_possible(self):
+        """The total number of points that could be earned in this Criterion."""
+        return max(option.points for option in self.options.all())
+
+
+class CriterionOption(models.Model):
+    """What an assessor chooses when assessing against a Criteria.
+
+    CriterionOptions have a name, point value, and explanation associated with
+    them. When you have to select between "Excellent", "Good", "Fair", "Bad" --
+    those are options.
+
+    Note that this is the representation of the choice itself, *not* a
+    representation of a particular assessor's choice for a particular
+    Assessment. That state is stored in :class:`AssessmentPart`.
+    """
+    # All Criteria must have at least one CriterionOption.
+    criterion = models.ForeignKey(Criterion, related_name="options")
+
+    # 0-based order in Criterion
+    order_num = models.PositiveIntegerField()
+
+    # How many points this option is worth. 0 is allowed.
+    points = models.PositiveIntegerField()
+
+    # Short name of the option. This is visible to the user.
+    # Examples: "Excellent", "Good", "Fair", "Poor"
+    name = models.CharField(max_length=100)
+
+    # Longer text describing this option and why you should choose it.
+    # Example: "The response makes 3-5 Monty Python references and at least one
+    #           original Star Wars trilogy reference. Do not select this option
+    #           if the author made any references to the second trilogy."
+    explanation = models.TextField(max_length=10000, blank=True)
+
+    class Meta:
+        ordering = ["criterion", "order_num"]
+
+    def __repr__(self):
+        return (
+            "CriterionOption(order_num={0.order_num}, points={0.points}, "
+            "name={0.name!r}, explanation={0.explanation!r})"
+        ).format(self)
+
+    def __unicode__(self):
+        return repr(self)
+
+
+class Assessment(models.Model):
+    """An evaluation made against a particular Submission and Rubric.
+
+    This is student state information and is created when a student completes
+    an assessment of some submission. It is composed of :class:`AssessmentPart`
+    objects that map to each :class:`Criterion` in the :class:`Rubric` we're
+    assessing against.
+    """
     submission = models.ForeignKey(Submission)
-    points_earned = models.PositiveIntegerField(default=0)
-    points_possible = models.PositiveIntegerField(default=0)
+    rubric = models.ForeignKey(Rubric)
+
     scored_at = models.DateTimeField(default=now, db_index=True)
-    scorer_id = models.CharField(max_length=255, db_index=True)
+    scorer_id = models.CharField(max_length=40, db_index=True)
     score_type = models.CharField(max_length=2)
-    feedback = models.TextField(max_length=10000, default="")
 
-    def __repr__(self):
-        return repr(dict(
-            submission=self.submission,
-            points_earned=self.points_earned,
-            points_possible=self.points_possible,
-            scored_at=self.scored_at,
-            scorer_id=self.scorer_id,
-            score_type=self.score_type,
-            feedback=self.feedback,
-        ))
+    # TODO: move this to its own model
+    feedback = models.TextField(max_length=10000, default="")
 
     class Meta:
         ordering = ["-scored_at"]
+
+    @property
+    def points_earned(self):
+        parts = [part.points_earned for part in self.parts.all()]
+        return sum(parts) if parts else 0
+
+    @property
+    def points_possible(self):
+        return self.rubric.points_possible
+
+    @property
+    def submission_uuid(self):
+        return self.submission.uuid
+
+    def __unicode__(self):
+        return u"Assessment {}".format(self.id)
+
+
+class AssessmentPart(models.Model):
+    """Part of an Assessment corresponding to a particular Criterion.
+
+    This is student state -- `AssessmentPart` represents what the student
+    assessed a submission with for a given `Criterion`. So an example would be::
+
+      5 pts: "Excellent"
+
+    It's implemented as a foreign key to the `CriterionOption` that was chosen
+    by this assessor for this `Criterion`. So basically, think of this class
+    as :class:`CriterionOption` + student state.
+    """
+    assessment = models.ForeignKey(Assessment, related_name='parts')
+
+    # criterion = models.ForeignKey(Criterion) ?
+    option = models.ForeignKey(CriterionOption) # TODO: no reverse
+
+    @property
+    def points_earned(self):
+        return self.option.points
+
+    @property
+    def points_possible(self):
+        return self.option.criterion.points_possible

apps/openassessment/peer/serializers.py

+# coding=utf-8
 """
 Serializers are created to ensure models do not have to be accessed outside the
 scope of the Tim APIs.
 """
+from copy import deepcopy
+from hashlib import sha1
+import json
+
 from rest_framework import serializers
-from openassessment.peer.models import PeerEvaluation
+from openassessment.peer.models import (
+    Assessment, AssessmentPart, Criterion, CriterionOption, Rubric
+)
+
+class InvalidRubric(Exception):
+    """This can be raised during the deserialization process."""
+    def __init__(self, errors):
+        Exception.__init__(self, repr(errors))
+        self.errors = deepcopy(errors)
+
+
+class NestedModelSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
+    """Model Serializer that supports deserialization with arbitrary nesting.
+
+    The Django REST Framework does not currently support deserialization more
+    than one level deep (so a parent and children). We want to be able to
+    create a :class:`Rubric` → :class:`Criterion` → :class:`CriterionOption`
+    hierarchy.
+
+    Much of the base logic already "just works" and serialization of arbritrary
+    depth is supported. So we just override the save_object method to
+    recursively link foreign key relations instead of doing it one level deep.
+
+    We don't touch many-to-many relationships because we don't need to for our
+    purposes, so those still only work one level deep.
+    """
+    def recursively_link_related(self, obj, **kwargs):
+        if getattr(obj, '_related_data', None):
+            for accessor_name, related in obj._related_data.items():
+                setattr(obj, accessor_name, related)
+                for related_obj in related:
+                    self.recursively_link_related(related_obj, **kwargs)
+            del(obj._related_data)
+
+    def save_object(self, obj, **kwargs):
+        obj.save(**kwargs)
+
+        # The code for many-to-many relationships is just copy-pasted from the
+        # Django REST Framework ModelSerializer
+        if getattr(obj, '_m2m_data', None):
+            for accessor_name, object_list in obj._m2m_data.items():
+                setattr(obj, accessor_name, object_list)
+            del(obj._m2m_data)
+
+        # This is our only real change from ModelSerializer
+        self.recursively_link_related(obj, **kwargs)
+
+
+class CriterionOptionSerializer(NestedModelSerializer):
+    """Serializer for :class:`CriterionOption`"""
+    class Meta:
+        model = CriterionOption
+        fields = ('order_num', 'points', 'name', 'explanation')
+
+
+class CriterionSerializer(NestedModelSerializer):
+    """Serializer for :class:`Criterion`"""
+    options = CriterionOptionSerializer(required=True, many=True)
+
+    class Meta:
+        model = Criterion
+        fields = ('order_num', 'name', 'prompt', 'options')
+
+
+    def validate_options(self, attrs, source):
+        """Make sure we have at least one CriterionOption in a Criterion."""
+        options = attrs[source]
+        if not options:
+            raise serializers.ValidationError(
+                "Criterion must have at least one option."
+            )
+        return attrs
+
+
+class RubricSerializer(NestedModelSerializer):
+    """Serializer for :class:`Rubric`."""
+    criteria = CriterionSerializer(required=True, many=True)
+    points_possible = serializers.Field(source='points_possible')
+
+    class Meta:
+        model = Rubric
+        fields = ('id', 'content_hash', 'criteria', 'points_possible')
 
 
-class PeerAssessmentSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
+    def validate_criteria(self, attrs, source):
+        """Make sure we have at least one Criterion in the Rubric."""
+        criteria = attrs[source]
+        if not criteria:
+            raise serializers.ValidationError("Must have at least one criterion")
+        return attrs
+
+
+class AssessmentPartSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
+    """Serializer for :class:`AssessmentPart`."""
+
+    class Meta:
+        model = AssessmentPart
+        fields = ('option',)  # TODO: Direct link to Criterion?
+
+
+class AssessmentSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
+    """Serializer for :class:`Assessment`."""
+    submission_uuid = serializers.Field(source='submission_uuid')
+
+    parts = AssessmentPartSerializer(required=True, many=True)
+    points_earned = serializers.Field(source='points_earned')
+    points_possible = serializers.Field(source='points_possible')
+
     class Meta:
-        model = PeerEvaluation
+        model = Assessment
         fields = (
-            'submission',
-            'points_earned',
-            'points_possible',
+            'submission',  # will go away shortly
+            'rubric',
             'scored_at',
             'scorer_id',
             'score_type',
-            'feedback',
+
+            # Foreign Key
+            'parts',
+
+            # Computed, not part of the model
+            'submission_uuid',
+            'points_earned',
+            'points_possible',
         )
+
+def rubric_from_dict(rubric_dict):
+    """Given a dict of rubric information, return the corresponding Rubric
+
+    This will create the Rubric and its children if it does not exist already.
+
+    Sample data (one criterion, two options)::
+
+        {
+          "prompt": "Create a plan to deliver edx-tim!",
+          "criteria": [
+            {
+              "order_num": 0,
+              "name": "realistic",
+              "prompt": "Is the deadline realistic?",
+              "options": [
+                {
+                  "order_num": 0,
+                  "points": 0,
+                  "name": "No",
+                  "explanation": "We need more time!"
+                },
+                {
+                  "order_num": 1,
+                  "points": 2,
+                  "name": "Yes",
+                  "explanation": "We got this."
+                },
+              ]
+            }
+          ]
+        }
+
+    """
+    rubric_dict = deepcopy(rubric_dict)
+
+    # Calculate the hash based on the rubric content...
+    content_hash = Rubric.content_hash_from_dict(rubric_dict)
+
+    try:
+        rubric = Rubric.objects.get(content_hash=content_hash)
+    except Rubric.DoesNotExist:
+        rubric_dict["content_hash"] = content_hash
+        for crit_idx, criterion in enumerate(rubric_dict.get("criteria", {})):
+            if "order_num" not in criterion:
+                criterion["order_num"] = crit_idx
+            for opt_idx, option in enumerate(criterion.get("options", {})):
+                if "order_num" not in option:
+                    option["order_num"] = opt_idx
+
+        rubric_serializer = RubricSerializer(data=rubric_dict)
+        if not rubric_serializer.is_valid():
+            raise InvalidRubric(rubric_serializer.errors)
+        rubric = rubric_serializer.save()
+
+    return rubric

apps/openassessment/peer/test/rubric_data/empty_criteria.json

+{
+  "prompt": "Create a plan to deliver edx-tim!",
+  "criteria": [
+  ]
+}

apps/openassessment/peer/test/rubric_data/empty_options.json

+{
+  "prompt": "Create a plan to deliver edx-tim!",
+  "criteria": [
+    {
+      "order_num": 0,
+      "name": "realistic",
+      "prompt": "Is the deadline realistic?",
+      "options": [
+        {
+          "order_num": 0,
+          "points": 0,
+          "name": "No",
+          "explanation": ""
+        },
+        {
+          "order_num": 1,
+          "points": 2,
+          "name": "Maybe",
+          "explanation": ""
+        },
+        {
+          "order_num": 2,
+          "points": 4,
+          "name": "Yes",
+          "explanation": ""
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "order_num": 1,
+      "name": "architecture",
+      "prompt": "Describe the architecture.",
+      "options": [
+      ]
+    }
+  ]
+}

apps/openassessment/peer/test/rubric_data/missing_criteria.json

+{
+  "prompt": "Create a plan to deliver edx-tim!"
+}

apps/openassessment/peer/test/rubric_data/missing_options.json

+{
+  "prompt": "Create a plan to deliver edx-tim!",
+  "criteria": [
+    {
+      "order_num": 0,
+      "name": "realistic",
+      "prompt": "Is the deadline realistic?"
+    },
+    {
+      "order_num": 1,
+      "name": "architecture",
+      "prompt": "Describe the architecture.",
+      "options": [
+        {
+          "order_num": 0,
+          "points": 0,
+          "name": "Crazy",
+          "explanation": ""
+        },
+        {
+          "order_num": 1,
+          "points": 1,
+          "name": "Plausible",
+          "explanation": ""
+        },
+        {
+          "order_num": 2,
+          "points": 2,
+          "name": "Solid",
+          "explanation": ""
+        }
+      ]
+    }
+  ]
+}

apps/openassessment/peer/test/rubric_data/no_points.json

+{
+  "prompt": "Create a plan to deliver edx-tim!",
+  "criteria": [
+    {
+      "order_num": 0,
+      "prompt": "Is the deadline realistic?",
+      "options": [
+        {
+          "order_num": 0,
+          "points": 0,
+          "name": "No",
+          "explanation": ""
+        },
+        {
+          "order_num": 1,
+          "points": 0,
+          "name": "Maybe",
+          "explanation": ""
+        },
+        {
+          "order_num": 2,
+          "points": 0,
+          "name": "Yes",
+          "explanation": ""
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "order_num": 1,
+      "prompt": "Describe the architecture.",
+      "options": [
+        {
+          "order_num": 0,
+          "points": 0,
+          "name": "Crazy",
+          "explanation": ""
+        },
+        {
+          "order_num": 1,
+          "points": 0,
+          "name": "Plausible",
+          "explanation": ""
+        },
+        {
+          "order_num": 2,
+          "points": 0,
+          "name": "Solid",
+          "explanation": ""
+        }
+      ]
+    }
+  ]
+}

apps/openassessment/peer/test/rubric_data/project_plan_rubric.json

+{
+  "prompt": "Create a plan to deliver edx-tim!",
+  "criteria": [
+    {
+      "order_num": 0,
+      "name": "realistic",
+      "prompt": "Is the deadline realistic?",
+      "options": [
+        {
+          "order_num": 0,
+          "points": 0,
+          "name": "No",
+          "explanation": ""
+        },
+        {
+          "order_num": 1,
+          "points": 2,
+          "name": "Maybe",
+          "explanation": ""
+        },
+        {
+          "order_num": 2,
+          "points": 4,
+          "name": "Yes",
+          "explanation": ""
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "order_num": 1,
+      "name": "architecture",
+      "prompt": "Describe the architecture.",
+      "options": [
+        {
+          "order_num": 0,
+          "points": 0,
+          "name": "Crazy",
+          "explanation": ""
+        },
+        {
+          "order_num": 1,
+          "points": 1,
+          "name": "Plausible",
+          "explanation": ""
+        },
+        {
+          "order_num": 2,
+          "points": 2,
+          "name": "Solid",
+          "explanation": ""
+        }
+      ]
+    }
+  ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file

apps/openassessment/peer/test/test_serializers.py

+import json
+import os.path
+
+from ddt import ddt, file_data
+from django.test import TestCase
+
+from openassessment.peer.models import Criterion, CriterionOption, Rubric
+from openassessment.peer.serializers import (
+    InvalidRubric, RubricSerializer, rubric_from_dict
+)
+
+def json_data(filename):
+    curr_dir = os.path.dirname(__file__)
+    with open(os.path.join(curr_dir, filename), "rb") as json_file:
+        return json.load(json_file)
+
+
+class TestRubricDeserialization(TestCase):
+
+    def test_rubric_only_created_once(self):
+        # Make sure sending the same Rubric data twice only creates one Rubric,
+        # and returns a reference to it the next time.
+        rubric_data = json_data('rubric_data/project_plan_rubric.json')
+
+        r1 = rubric_from_dict(rubric_data)
+
+        with self.assertNumQueries(1):
+            # Just the select -- shouldn't need the create queries
+            r2 = rubric_from_dict(rubric_data)
+
+        self.assertEqual(r1.id, r2.id)
+        r1.delete()
+
+    def test_rubric_requires_positive_score(self):
+        with self.assertRaises(InvalidRubric):
+            rubric_from_dict(json_data('rubric_data/no_points.json'))
+
+
+
+class TestCriterionDeserialization(TestCase):
+
+    def test_empty_criteria(self):
+        with self.assertRaises(InvalidRubric) as cm:
+            rubric_from_dict(json_data('rubric_data/empty_criteria.json'))
+        self.assertEqual(
+            cm.exception.errors,
+            {'criteria': [u'Must have at least one criterion']}
+        )
+
+    def test_missing_criteria(self):
+        with self.assertRaises(InvalidRubric) as cm:
+            rubric_from_dict(json_data('rubric_data/missing_criteria.json'))
+        self.assertEqual(
+            cm.exception.errors,
+            {'criteria': [u'This field is required.']}
+        )
+
+class TestCriterionOptionDeserialization(TestCase):
+
+    def test_empty_options(self):
+        with self.assertRaises(InvalidRubric) as cm:
+            rubric_from_dict(json_data('rubric_data/empty_options.json'))
+        self.assertEqual(
+            cm.exception.errors,
+            {
+                'criteria': [
+                    {},  # There are no errors in the first criterion
+                    {'options': [u'Criterion must have at least one option.']}
+                ]
+            }
+        )
+
+    def test_missing_options(self):
+        with self.assertRaises(InvalidRubric) as cm:
+            rubric_from_dict(json_data('rubric_data/missing_options.json'))
+        self.assertEqual(
+            cm.exception.errors,
+            {
+                'criteria': [
+                    {'options': [u'This field is required.']},
+                    {}  # No errors in second criterion
+                ]
+            }
+        )
+

apps/openassessment/peer/test/test_valid_evaluations.json

-{
-    "unicode_evaluation": {
-        "points_earned": [10, 0, 24, 36],
-        "points_possible": 12,
-        "feedback": "这是中国"
-    },
-    "basic_evaluation": {
-        "points_earned": [1, 0, 3, 2],
-        "points_possible": 12,
-        "feedback": "Your submission was thrilling."
-    }
-}
\ No newline at end of file

apps/openassessment/peer/test/valid_assessments.json

+{
+    "unicode_evaluation": {
+        "feedback": "这是中国",
+        "options_selected": {
+            "secret": "yes",
+            "ⓢⓐⓕⓔ": "no",
+            "giveup": "reluctant",
+            "singing": "no"
+        }
+    },
+    "basic_evaluation": {
+        "feedback": "Your submission was thrilling.",
+        "options_selected": {
+            "secret": "yes",
+            "ⓢⓐⓕⓔ": "no",
+            "giveup": "reluctant",
+            "singing": "no"
+        }
+    }
+}
\ No newline at end of file

apps/openassessment/xblock/openassessmentblock.py

@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ from webob import Response
 from xblock.core import XBlock
 from xblock.fields import List, Scope, String
 from xblock.fragment import Fragment
+
 from openassessment.xblock.peer_assessment_mixin import PeerAssessmentMixin
 from openassessment.xblock.self_assessment_mixin import SelfAssessmentMixin
 from openassessment.xblock.submission_mixin import SubmissionMixin
@@ -123,7 +124,6 @@ DEFAULT_ASSESSMENT_MODULES = [
     DEFAULT_PEER_ASSESSMENT,
 ]
 
-
 def load(path):
     """Handy helper for getting resources from our kit."""
     data = pkg_resources.resource_string(__name__, path)
@@ -226,7 +226,6 @@ class OpenAssessmentBlock(XBlock, SubmissionMixin, PeerAssessmentMixin, SelfAsse
             (Fragment): The HTML Fragment for this XBlock, which determines the
             general frame of the Open Ended Assessment Question.
         """
-
         trace = self.get_xblock_trace()
 
         grade_state = self.get_grade_state()

apps/openassessment/xblock/peer_assessment_mixin.py

@@ -34,25 +34,29 @@ class PeerAssessmentMixin(object):
             newly created assessment, and a "Success" string.
 
         """
-        assessment = self.get_assessment_module('peer-assessment')
-        if assessment:
+        assessment_ui_model = self.get_assessment_module('peer-assessment')
+        if assessment_ui_model:
+            rubric_dict = {
+                'criteria': self.rubric_criteria
+            }
             assessment_dict = {
-                "points_earned": map(int, data["points_earned"]),
-                "points_possible": sum(c['total_value'] for c in self.rubric_criteria),
                 "feedback": "Not yet implemented.",
+                "options_selected": data["options_selected"],
             }
             assessment = peer_api.create_assessment(
                 data["submission_uuid"],
                 self.get_student_item_dict()["student_id"],
-                int(assessment.must_grade),
-                int(assessment.must_be_graded_by),
-                assessment_dict
+                int(assessment_ui_model.must_grade),
+                int(assessment_ui_model.must_be_graded_by),
+                assessment_dict,
+                rubric_dict,
             )
 
             # Temp kludge until we fix JSON serialization for datetime
             assessment["scored_at"] = str(assessment["scored_at"])
 
-            return assessment, "Success"
+        return {}
+
 
     @XBlock.handler
     def render_peer_assessment(self, data, suffix=''):

apps/openassessment/xblock/scenario_parser.py

@@ -48,20 +48,27 @@ class ScenarioParser(object):
            </rubric>"""
         rubric_criteria = []
         for criterion in e:
-            crit = {'name': criterion.attrib.get('name', ''),
-                    'instructions': criterion.text.strip(),
-                    'total_value': 0,
-                    'options': [],
-                   }
+            crit = {
+                'name': criterion.attrib.get('name', ''),
+                'prompt': criterion.text.strip(),
+                'options': [],
+            }
             for option in criterion:
                 explanations = option.getchildren()
                 if explanations and len(explanations) == 1 and explanations[0].tag == 'explain':
                     explanation = explanations[0].text.strip()
                 else: 
                     explanation = ''
-                crit['options'].append((option.attrib['val'], option.text.strip(), explanation))
-            crit['total_value'] = max(int(x[0]) for x in crit['options'])
+
+                crit['options'].append(
+                    {
+                        'name': option.text.strip(),
+                        'points': int(option.attrib['val']),
+                        'explanation': explanation,
+                    }
+                )
             rubric_criteria.append(crit)
+
         return (e.text.strip(), rubric_criteria)
 
     def get_assessments(self, assessments):

apps/openassessment/xblock/static/html/oa_peer_assessment.html

@@ -61,18 +61,24 @@
                             <!-- individual rubric question (radio-based choice) -->
                             <li class="field field--radio is--required assessment__rubric__question" id="assessment__rubric__question--{{ criterion.name }}">
                                 <h4 class="question__title">
-                                    {{ criterion.instructions }}
+                                    {{ criterion.prompt }}
                                     <span class="label--required">* <span class="sr">(Required)</span></span>
                                 </h4>
-
                                 <ol class="question__answers">
-                                    {% for value, text in criterion.options %}
+                                    {% for option in criterion.options %}
                                     <li class="answer">
                                         <div class="wrapper--input">
-                                            <input type="radio" name="assessment__rubric__question--{{ criterion.name }}" id="assessment__rubric__question--{{ criterion.name }}--01" class="answer__value" value="answer--001__option--01 - Very Well" />
-                                            <label for="assessment__rubric__question--001__option--01" class="answer__label">({{ value }}) {{ text }}</label>
+                                            <input type="radio"
+                                                   name="{{ criterion.name }}"
+                                                   id="assessment__rubric__question--{{ criterion.name }}"
+                                                   class="answer__value"
+                                                   value="{{ option.name }}" />
+                                            ({{option.points}})
+                                            <label for="assessment__rubric__question--001__option--01"
+                                                   class="answer__label"
+                                                   >{{ option.name }}</label>
                                         </div>
-                                        <span class="answer__tip">TODO: Criterion Instructions</span>
+                                        <span class="answer__tip">{{ option.explanation }}</span>
                                     </li>
                                     {% endfor %}
                                 </ol>

apps/openassessment/xblock/static/js/src/oa_base.js

@@ -45,17 +45,24 @@ function OpenAssessmentBlock(runtime, element) {
 
         function prepare_assessment_post(element) {
             var selector = $("input[type=radio]:checked", element);
+            var criteriaChoices = {};
             var values = [];
             for (var i=0; i<selector.length; i++) {
                 values[i] = selector[i].value;
+                criteriaChoices[selector[i].name] = selector[i].value
             }
-            return {"submission_uuid":$("div#peer_submission_uuid")[0].innerText, "points_earned":values};
+            return {
+                "submission_uuid":$("div#peer_submission_uuid")[0].innerText,
+                "points_earned":values,
+                "options_selected":criteriaChoices
+            };
         }
 
         $('#peer-assessment--001__assessment__submit', element).click(function(eventObject) {
+            eventObject.preventDefault();
             $.ajax({
                 type: "POST",
-                url: handlerUrl,
+                url: runtime.handlerUrl(element, 'assess'),
                 /* data: JSON.stringify({"submission": $('.openassessment_submission', element).val()}), */
                 data: JSON.stringify(prepare_assessment_post(element)),
                 success: function(data) {

apps/openassessment/xblock/static/xml/poverty_rubric_example.xml

@@ -13,30 +13,30 @@
             Read for conciseness, clarity of thought, and form.
             <criterion name="concise">
                 How concise is it?
-                <option val="0">(0) Neal Stephenson (late)
+                <option val="0">Neal Stephenson (late)
                     <explain>
                         In "Cryptonomicon", Stephenson spent multiple pages talking about breakfast cereal.
                         While hilarious, in recent years his work has been anything but 'concise'.
                     </explain>
                 </option>
-                <option val="1">(1) HP Lovecraft
+                <option val="1">HP Lovecraft
                     <explain>
                         If the author wrote something cyclopean that staggers the mind, score it thus.
                     </explain>
                 </option>
-                <option val="3">(3) Robert Heinlein
+                <option val="3">Robert Heinlein
                     <explain>
                         Tight prose that conveys a wealth of information about the world in relatively
                         few words. Example, "The door irised open and he stepped inside."
                     </explain>
                 </option>
-                <option val="4">(4) Neal Stephenson (early)
+                <option val="4">Neal Stephenson (early)
                     <explain>
                         When Stephenson still had an editor, his prose was dense, with anecdotes about
                         nitrox abuse implying main characters' whole life stories.
                     </explain>
                 </option>
-                <option val="5">(5) Earnest Hemingway
+                <option val="5">Earnest Hemingway
                     <explain>
                         Score the work this way if it makes you weep, and the removal of a single
                         word would make you sneer.
@@ -45,11 +45,11 @@
             </criterion>
             <criterion name="clearheaded">
                 How clear is the thinking?
-                <option val="0">(0) Yogi Berra</option>
-                <option val="1">(1) Hunter S. Thompson</option>
-                <option val="2">(2) Robert Heinlein</option>
-                <option val="3">(3) Isaac Asimov</option>
-                <option val="10">(10) Spock
+                <option val="0">Yogi Berra</option>
+                <option val="1">Hunter S. Thompson</option>
+                <option val="2">Robert Heinlein</option>
+                <option val="3">Isaac Asimov</option>
+                <option val="10">Spock
                     <explain>
                         Coolly rational, with a firm grasp of the main topics, a crystal-clear train of thought,
                         and unemotional examination of the facts.  This is the only item explained in this category,
@@ -59,12 +59,12 @@
             </criterion>
             <criterion name="form">
                 Lastly, how is it's form? Punctuation, grammar, and spelling all count.
-                <option val="0">(0) lolcats</option>
-                <option val="1">(1) Facebook</option>
-                <option val="2">(2) Reddit</option>
-                <option val="3">(3) metafilter</option>
-                <option val="4">(4) Usenet, 1996</option>
-                <option val="5">(5) The Elements of Style</option>
+                <option val="0">lolcats</option>
+                <option val="1">Facebook</option>
+                <option val="2">Reddit</option>
+                <option val="3">metafilter</option>
+                <option val="4">Usenet, 1996</option>
+                <option val="5">The Elements of Style</option>
             </criterion>
         </rubric>
         <assessments>

apps/openassessment/xblock/test/test_openassessment.py

 """
 Tests the Open Assessment XBlock functionality.
 """
-
 import json
-import webob
 
 from django.test import TestCase
 from mock import patch
-from openassessment.xblock.submission_mixin import SubmissionMixin
+from workbench.runtime import WorkbenchRuntime
+import webob
 
-from submissions import api
+from openassessment.xblock.submission_mixin import SubmissionMixin
+from submissions import api as sub_api
 from submissions.api import SubmissionRequestError, SubmissionInternalError
-from workbench.runtime import WorkbenchRuntime
 
 RUBRIC_CONFIG = """
     <openassessment start="2014-12-19T23:00-7:00" due="2014-12-21T23:00-7:00">
@@ -105,7 +104,7 @@ class TestOpenAssessment(TestCase):
         self.assertEqual(result[1], "ENOMULTI")
         self.assertEqual(result[2], self.assessment.submit_errors["ENOMULTI"])
 
-    @patch.object(api, 'create_submission')
+    @patch.object(sub_api, 'create_submission')
     def test_submission_general_failure(self, mock_submit):
         """Internal errors return some code for submission failure."""
         mock_submit.side_effect = SubmissionInternalError("Cat on fire.")
@@ -118,7 +117,7 @@ class TestOpenAssessment(TestCase):
         self.assertEqual(result[1], "EUNKNOWN")
         self.assertEqual(result[2], SubmissionMixin().submit_errors["EUNKNOWN"])
 
-    @patch.object(api, 'create_submission')
+    @patch.object(sub_api, 'create_submission')
     def test_submission_API_failure(self, mock_submit):
         """API usage errors return code and meaningful message."""
         mock_submit.side_effect = SubmissionRequestError("Cat on fire.")

apps/openassessment/xblock/test/test_scenario_parser.py

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ from openassessment.xblock.scenario_parser import ScenarioParser
 class TestScenarioParser(TestCase):
     """Test the ScenarioParser XML parsing class, which turns xml into filled XBlocks.
 
-    This does the simplest possible set of tests, just calling the parser utility 
+    This does the simplest possible set of tests, just calling the parser utility
     methods and confirming that their return results are correct, have good types, etc."""
 
     def setUp(self):
@@ -24,8 +24,8 @@ class TestScenarioParser(TestCase):
 
     def test_get_rubric(self):
         """Given a <rubric> tree, return a instructions and a list of criteria"""
-        rubric_instructions_text = "This text is general instructions relating to this rubric. There should only be one set of instructions for the rubric."
-        criterion_instructions_text = "This text is instructions for this criterion. There can be multiple criteria, but each one should only have one set of instructions."
+        rubric_prompt_text = "This text is general instructions relating to this rubric. There should only be one set of instructions for the rubric."
+        criterion_prompt_text = "This text is instructions for this criterion. There can be multiple criteria, but each one should only have one set of instructions."
         criterion_option_explain_text = "And this explains what the label for this option means. There can be only one explanation per label."
         rubric_text = """<rubric>
              {rit}
@@ -39,27 +39,26 @@ class TestScenarioParser(TestCase):
                  </explain>
                </option>
              </criterion>
-           </rubric>""".format(rit=rubric_instructions_text,
-                               cit=criterion_instructions_text,
+           </rubric>""".format(rit=rubric_prompt_text,
+                               cit=criterion_prompt_text,
                                coet=criterion_option_explain_text)
         rubric_xml = etree.fromstring(rubric_text)
-        rubric_instructions, rubric_criteria = self.test_parser.get_rubric(rubric_xml)
+        rubric_prompt, rubric_criteria = self.test_parser.get_rubric(rubric_xml)
 
-        # Basic shape of the rubric: instructions and criteria
-        self.assertEqual(rubric_instructions, rubric_instructions_text)
+        # Basic shape of the rubric: prompt and criteria
+        self.assertEqual(rubric_prompt, rubric_prompt_text)
         self.assertEqual(len(rubric_criteria), 1)
 
         # Look inside the criterion to make sure it's shaped correctly
         criterion = rubric_criteria[0]
         self.assertEqual(criterion['name'], 'myCrit')
-        self.assertEqual(criterion['instructions'], criterion_instructions_text)
-        self.assertEqual(criterion['total_value'], 99)
+        self.assertEqual(criterion['prompt'], criterion_prompt_text)
         self.assertEqual(len(criterion['options']), 1)
 
         # And within the criterion, check that options appear to come out well-formed
-        criterion_option_value, criterion_option, criterion_explanation = criterion['options'][0]
-        self.assertEqual(int(criterion_option_value), 99)
-        self.assertEqual(criterion_explanation, criterion_option_explain_text)
+        option = criterion['options'][0]
+        self.assertEqual(option['points'], 99)
+        self.assertEqual(option['explanation'], criterion_option_explain_text)
 
     def test_get_assessments(self):
         """Given an <assessments> list, return a list of assessment modules."""

apps/submissions/models.py

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ class StudentItem(models.Model):
         ))
 
     def __unicode__(self):
-        return "({0.student_id}, {0.course_id}, {0.item_type}, {0.item_id})".format(self)
+        return u"({0.student_id}, {0.course_id}, {0.item_type}, {0.item_id})".format(self)
 
     class Meta:
         unique_together = (

doc/source/api.rst

@@ -48,3 +48,6 @@ Models
 ++++++
 .. automodule:: submissions.models
    :members:
+
+.. automodule:: openassessment.peer.models
+   :members: