Re: GC8ZME1 - new challenge, another checker request

[Resolved] GC8ZME1 - new challenge, another checker request
March 03, 2021 06:48AM
Hi again - My previous Preteen challenge associated to GC8ZME1 was rejected by the local reviewer when I attempted to have it published so could you please disassociate/remove/delete/(whatever you do) with the existing checker and write a new checker for this new challenge or point me to a checker if it already exists?

I've already seen other challenges based on finding a specific cache type for x number of days (eg 50 or 100 or 150 days of Wherigos or 365 days of traditionals). In that same vein, I would like to create a challenge where a person has to meet the following criteria and find:

- 100 days of 3 different cache types - eg. find at least 1 traditional on at least 100 unique days, mysteries on 100 days, and another cache type for 100 days
- plus 10 days of 6 other cache types, and
- 5 days of 1 other cache type

So in total, that works out to be (100 * 3) + (10 * 6) + 5 = 300 + 60 + 5 = 365 total days. Only the day and month matter; the year is irrelevant. The dates do not have to be sequential. The dates can "overlap" ie. be used multiple times across any of the caches types too. Eg. Mar 1 could be used for both the traditional and mystery types and any of the others too. Any cache types are allowed except lab caches, benchmarks, and waymarks.

I'm hoping the output of the checker will show each cache type and which days they have found that cache type on, perhaps in some sort of calendar grid format? The problem is that's a lot of calendars by the time you're done checking. Really, my goal is, so that if people don't qualify, they know which caches types they don't have enough days for and which days they are missing. If there's a better way to display that type of information, I'm open to it.

This new challenge has already been reviewed by the local reviewers and both are ok with it. I also know that I already qualify for this challenge, if you are looking for someone to test against.

Hopefully I've explained this challenge well enough but if not, please let me know if you need any more information. I'm open to suggestions or hearing the potential gotchas that I may have missed with this challenge too.

Thank you.
Re: GC8ZME1 - new challenge, another checker request
March 03, 2021 11:22AM
Removed the old checker but I can not find a solution for the new checker.
This will probably require a new script
Re: GC8ZME1 - new challenge, another checker request
March 04, 2021 01:58PM
Here is your checker:
Please say if it is good for you.
Re: GC8ZME1 - new challenge, another checker request
March 04, 2021 09:09PM
Tested and it looks and works great!

Do you know how the checker handles caches that were logged multiple times though? We had 3 travelling caches in our local area that people used to log multiple times (on multiple days). I'm hoping the checker only counts them once but I just wanted to make sure, or at least know how the checker handles them so that I can document it in the challenge cache details.

I also noticed the example log "section" only appears if the cacher passes the challenge. Is that by design or could it be also shown to cachers who fail the challenge? I just like the summary information in it so that people can quickly find out where/which cache types they need to find more of.

Otherwise, thank you thank you. It looks and works great!
Re: GC8ZME1 - new challenge, another checker request
March 05, 2021 09:02AM
I will update the checker so that each cache logged twice is only counted on the first find later today. As for the ‘log’ section, this will only appear if the cacher qualifies, as with every other checker, I believe. The same information is still available in the html output.
Re: GC8ZME1 - new challenge, another checker request
March 05, 2021 10:26AM
It is now updated.
Re: GC8ZME1 - new challenge, another checker request
March 06, 2021 05:21AM
Thank you. It looks good. It didn't seem to change anything for me but that's probably a good thing. I've tested again on a few other people and it looks like it's good to go.

Thanks for all your help. :-) Please feel free to mark this request as completed/resolved.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login