Re: Requesting checker for GC9VW4D

Hi there - I'm looking to create a challenge that merges GC9P0GZ Attributes D/T Bingo Challenge Olio #17 with GC9KZ1Y VICS: A Bingo Challenge! cache.

GC9KZ1Y wants 1 row, or 1 column, or 1 diagonal of the D/T grid filled in with different cache types.

My idea for this challenge is to fill 1 row AND 1 column of the D/T grid with different cache types, much like what GC9P0GZ wants with the same attribute. In this new challenge, the intersection point of the row and column must be the same cache (type) as well. However the rest of the cache types in the row vs column do not have to match. I'm hoping the output of the checker looks like GC9KZ1Y's.

I'm not sure if the challenge can work as well with 2 diagonals (like GC9P0GZ) but if it does, I'll make that an option for completing my challenge as well. Again the intersection point of the 2 diagonals must be the same cache (type).

Lab caches and benchmarks aren't allowed for the challenge.

Hopefully that is clear as mud. ;-) If you have any questions or need more details, please let me know.

Thanks for all your help.

Hi there - I thought I'd follow up and see if there are any updates to my request for this checker.

I also forgot to mention both local reviewers have approved this challenge already if that's a concern.

Thanks.

Having one row and one column and one dialog is possible,

See this as an example:
https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC8R4JH/51838

However, having the overlapping cache match type I dont see as a single tag option of the current script and seems like a significant script change.
The option to have the overlapping match is not trivial as it has to look at any and every option/combination and not just the first option that matches

Hi there waterfan5. The output looks great. Thank you for putting that together.

I'm torn now. I'm not sure what to do. I could change the challenge to remove the overlap requirement but I wanted the cross output/requirement because it fits with my other attributes D/T Bingo challenge, plus we have a couple of other local "cross" themed challenges in my area as well. How much time and effort would it take to complete that part?

I'm no programmer but I would have thought it could be built so that the checker runs recursively to figure it out. I'm not sure if the checker can be built to do that or not though.

In my head, this is how I thought it would work. And this is sorta the way I manually figured out that I qualify for this challenge myself. It would take the output that this checker generated and first verifies if the cacher has completed at least 1 row and 1 column or both diagonals. If the cacher hasn't done that, they fail the challenge.

If the cacher does have at least 1 row and 1 column or both diagonals completed (so in my case it would know I have the D1.0 row and T1.5 and T2.0 columns completed), the checker would continue. Next it finds the first intersection point of the first row completed from the row output (so the D1.0/T1.5 square for me which is a multi), fills that square in for the column "checker" portion and then runs the checker again to see if it can fill in the other 8 T1.5 squares with other cache types. If it can, then the cacher has qualified for the challenge.

If it can't find a suitable solution for that T1.5 column that way, then the checker flips it, and tries it again. So it uses the intersection point from the T1.5 column instead (so the D1.0/T1.5 square in myT1.5 column output is a CITO), and then runs the row "checker" part with the square filled in (with the CITO), in hopes it can fill in the rest of the D1.0 row with other different cache types. Again, if it can complete the D1.0 row that way, the cacher has qualified. If not, it moves on to try the same thing with the next intersection point (D1.0/T2.0) in the same way until it basically runs out of options. "Rinse and repeat" with the 2 diagonals as well.

Of course, I have no clue how much work is involved to write a script like that or perhaps a more efficient/elegant checker script to make the cross work. There is no rush so I am willing to wait for this to be completed but I also don't want to waste too much of your valuable time and effort for this. I'm looking for some feedback from you as a checker writer to see if it's worthwhile or not. Maybe this is a 'challenge' (to write the new script) that interests someone just cause or it could be put on the backburner for whenever you have some free time. Maybe this script can be written in such a way it can be reused for other similar challenges, which makes it worthwhile to write (will someone want a 2 row, 2 column challenge someday or maybe a sudoku based type of challenge someday?), or maybe this challenge will be super popular so it's just worth writing it (LOL :-b ).

As I said, I'm open to suggestions and looking for some honest input.

Thank you for what you've done already. :-)

PS - Sorry, I just thought of this. This is another challenge I have - https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC8ZZVH/61844. Could that checker output data be reused for this challenge?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2022 09:30PM by sapien. (view changes)

I'm working on this.

I have row/column cross done, just need to refactor so I can also check diagonals and fix output for diagonal and when the user doesn't qualify.
Might be done today, depending on how well/badly the refactoring goes.

https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC9VW4D/70496

Overall the code isn't very good, but as far as I can tell it works and I just cba refactoring it.
I've tested it with two people with >100k finds (and a bunch of others).
But might be some bug under certain situations, never know.

Thank you thank you thank you. I've tested it as much as I can and it appears to be working great. I don't know how you made it work from the back end but from a UI/front end POV, the output looks great with all the testing I've done so far (I maxxed out my 10 checker runs a day limit so I can't do any more testing till tomorrow now).

I haven't been able to find a cacher who qualifies using the diagonals yet but from a row/column qualification and if the cacher fails to qualify, the output looks great.

I want to test on a few more cachers to see if I can find a diagonal qualifier to make that works but otherwise, well done! Stay tuned.

And thank you again!

It checks rows/columns first, so diagonals are only checked if there's no row/column.
I sidestepped that in the code and checked two users that had diagonal and that worked.
So you must either find someone that does not qualify for row/column, or I have to (easily) modify the script to check diagonals anyway (it doesn't output row/column then, only diagonals).

Well, that probably explains why then. Thanks. :-) I suspect most people will qualify using the row/column criteria anyways. I just wanted to verify that the diagonal criterion is working and grab a screen shot for the description if possible. But as long as you've tested it, I'm happy and I think this checker is good to go then. It seems to be working great with the row/column from the testing I've done so far. We'll just have to wait to see if anyone else catches any bugs once it goes live.

Thank you for all your help! (and time and effort)