It's only more complicated in the sense that I'd have to change some recently-written code. :)
Both integer and floating point -- as you point out -- are really the same except for the choice of where to put the decimal point. I chose integer to preserve the same scoring strategy from the previous design. Basically: add stuff up, and if the total exceeds a theshold, you've got spam. I took a quick look at SpamAssassin. They do use floating point scores. I like the way they allow weights to be customized for each rule. That seems like it would be a good enhancement for us, too. So, it seems to me that if we go floating-point, we should make it possible to configure custom weights for each Inspector. That also implies that it would be better to simply have Inspector.inspect() simply return a "pass/fail/no result" result and have the parent Inspection object figure out what to add or subtract from the running total. This would mean that the Inspectors wouldn't be able to modify scores directly. And it would be closer to the SpamAssessin model, and would probably simpler to code for too. Reasonable? On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Janne Jalkanen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Heya! > > I don't quite understand - why would a floating point value be any more > complicated than an integer? > > Note that at the moment we mark a modification a spam if a single test > fails, which essentially means doing logical OR more than any sort of an > addition (=threshold is always 1). The integer is there more or less as > something-which-was-never-completed-and-I-am-almost-sure-is-the-wrong-design. > In fact, I did lament the fact that you can't say that "X is a bit more > efficient than Y" - with an integer-based design you essentially go for > fixed point arithmetics (test A gives you 100, test B gives you 150, etc, > where you just shifted decimal points to the right just for the heck of it). > > If you take a look at SpamAssassin, it uses floats. > > I'd hesitate changing it later, since it will create an API contract. > > /Janne > > On Sep 27, 2009, at 22:34 , Andrew Jaquith wrote: > >> Janne --- good critique, and good suggestions. I've killed the >> limit-setting methods on the Inspection class itself in favor of a listener >> strategy. I adopteed your other suggestions too, except... >> >> ...at the moment I am inclined to leave the scoring scale as integer-based >> for now. I like it because it is simple, and resembles what we do now. We >> can change it later if need be. >> >> In answer to your first question: the inspector package does not help >> graduation, although it does help the beta that comes after the diploma. :) >> >> Andrew >> >> On Sep 27, 2009, at 4:37, Janne Jalkanen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> My main concern: does this advance our graduation? >>> >>> Others inline. >>> >>> On 25 Sep 2009, at 20:54, Andrew Jaquith wrote: >>> >>>> The "inspect" package provides facilities that allow content to be >>>> inspected and scored based on various criteria such as whether a wiki >>>> page change contains spam. Content may be scored by initializing an >>>> Inspection object and then calling the {...@link Inspection#inspect()} >>>> method. The {...@code inspect} method, in turn, iterates through a >>>> variety of previously-configured {...@link Inspector} objects and calls >>>> the {...@link Inspector#inspect(String,String)} method for each one. Each >>>> of the configured inspectors is free to perform whatever evaluations >>>> it wishes, and can increase, decrease or reset the "scores" for any >>>> score category, for example the {...@link Score#SPAM} category. >>> >>> Ok. >>> >>>> * Score objects supply instructions to the parent Inspection object to >>>> increment, decrement or reset the score for a particular category. >>>> Each Score object is constructed with a category (for example, >>>> Score.SPAM), an integer indicating how much to change the score, and >>>> an optional String message that provides context for the change. For >>>> example, a Score that increments the spam score by 1 could be >>>> constructed by new Score( Score.SPAM, 1, "Bot detected." ). Negative >>>> numbers can be supplied also to decrease the score. For convenience, >>>> {...@link Score#INCREMENT_SCORE} means "add 1", {...@link >>>> Score#DECREMENT_SCORE} means "subtract 1", and {...@link Score#RESET} >>>> means "reset to zero." >>> >>> Smells of overdesign to me. Creating a new operation and methodology to >>> support addition sounds like a bad idea. Not to mention the fact that you >>> might actually want to use fractions. >>> >>> Something like inspection.changeScore( Score.SPAM, 0.5f ) sounds more >>> appealing to me. >>> >>>> public String preSave( WikiContext context, String content ) throws >>>> RedirectException >>>> { >>>> Change change = getChange( context, content ); >>>> >>>> // Run the Inspection >>>> Inspection inspection = new Inspection( context, m_config, m_inspectors >>>> ); >>>> inspection.addLimit( Score.SPAM, m_scoreLimit ); >>>> inspection.inspect( content, change ); >>>> int spamScore = inspection.getScore( Score.SPAM ); >>>> context.setVariable( ATTR_SPAMFILTER_SCORE, spamScore ); >>>> >>>> // Redirect user if score too high >>>> if( inspection.isFailed() ) >>>> { >>>> ... >>>> } >>>> ... >>>> } >>> >>> Yes, this looks unnecessarily complicated and limiting to me. I would >>> remove automatic limit-rating altogether, and would just concentrate on >>> refactoring the individual methods from SpamFilter into the inspect-package >>> with a light wrapper around them. I think a callback design is better than >>> adding quite limited limit thingies anyway, as this gives full programmatic >>> control to the developer without us having to pre-guess the possible >>> limitations. >>> >>> E.g. inspection.inspect( content, change, new InspectionResultListener() >>> { >>> public boolean visit(Inspection ins) >>> { >>> // Any possible decision code goes here >>> return ins.getScore() > m_maxScore; >>> } >>> }); >>> >>> Obviously, these listeners would be optional, and you could just let the >>> entire chain run without interference. And for simplicity, we can provide >>> some default listeners, e.g. >>> >>> inspection.inspect( content, change, new StopAtScoreListener( Score.SPAM, >>> 5 ) ); >>> >>> (Yeah, I'm a big fan of this pattern 'cos it gives much more control to >>> the developer and eases debugging immensely.) >>> >>>> ChangeRateInspector, LinkCountInspector, SpamInspector (for Akismet), >>> >>> This should obviously be called AkismetInspector; all the others detect >>> spammers too (and Akismet is probably the worst of the lot anyway). >>> >>> /Janne > >
