Re: Requesting another checker (for GCA4QC6)

As noted in my previous post, this checker request and the last one are related.

This checker request is for GCA4QC6, the next challenge in my series of existing similar challenge caches GC9D25A and GC9D25D.  Those challenges are based on hidden date just like this new one.  But instead of finding unique cache types or sizes in each hidden month/year square, to qualify for this new challenge, cachers must find 5000 unique hidden year/month/Attribute combinations. My last checker request uses attributes as well.

Here's a couple of other caveats/criteria for this challenge as well - 

• The Partnership, Lost and Found, and Needs Maintenance attributes can not be used for this challenge either. The other 108 positive and negative attributes are allowed for this challenge though.
• To keep this challenge consistent with the other 2 in the series, all cache types can be used for this challenge except for adventure lab caches, benchmarks, and any events (regular, CITO, mega, giga, HQ block party, HQ celebration, lost and found/community celebrations, and GPS exhibits).
• Also please exclude the cacher's own caches from the challenge.  In the past, cachers were able to log their own caches.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks.

This request requires a script extension by DrAcorn

He will try to do it by the end of the week at the latest.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2023 12:11PM by vogelbird. (view changes)

Here is a checker:
https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GCA4QC6/75761
Like the last one, the output is very long - it may be too long to load in extreme cases. I will try to reformat this soon, but at least I think the functionality is working.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2023 04:00PM by DrAcorn. (view changes)

Thank you for creating the checker. It appears to be working (woo hoo!) but the results seem high for me though. It appears the checker may be counting attributes from events. Could you please confirm if all events (and the cacher's own caches) are excluded from this checker as per my original request above?

Could you please look at my reply to my other GC9WT1A checker request as well? It seems redundant to post the same comments twice. I think they may be applicable for this checker as well. Thanks.

I've updated this one too, for specifics see the other post :)

I have some feedback about this checker as well. I've added the details to my reply of the other checker though. Is it better to leave this request open or should the 2 requests be combined into that other thread? I don't mind either way but I don't know what workflow processes work best for you. Please let me know.

Thanks.

I think I have a solution for this one. I've made it so that the attributes appear on the side of the grid instead of the centre, hence greatly reducing the size of HTML. I've tested it with some of the most prolific cachers in the world and they all run fine.

From my point of view, this is a lot easier than extending the other GC9P0GZ script for this cache, and it would result in being quite a big fork from what it is intended for. the other cache would be fine to extend the GC9P0GZ script for, so let me know if you want the D/T/Attribute cache to be from the GC9P0GZ script or the same format as the other (https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GCA4QC6/75761)

I've also now excluded all events too (didn't read the request properly!)

Also about the two threads, we can mark the other one (https://project-gc.com/forum/read?8,71373) as resolved I think, then continue with this one.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2023 08:15PM by DrAcorn. (view changes)

Well, that was an unexpected way to view the data. I never would have thought of that but it seems to work. I've done a few manual verification checks and it appears the data seems to match the numbers I've calculated (roughly) so it appears the extra criteria are in place. Thank you.

My ideal scenario would be to use the checker output format from GC9P0GZ for both the GC9WT1A challenge and this one GCA4QC6. But I'm ok with the current checker you have with GCA4QC6 if it's the most viable option. I think it looks better than the previous output layout too.

For the other challenge GC9WT1A, I think there's something wrong with the existing checker https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC9WT1A/75760 right now. It looks like it might be showing the attribute number instead of the attribute name in the output right now. But overall, I still think the output format from GC9P0GZ would look better than the existing GC9WT1A checker. As I said before, I think it's harder to figure out what attributes you are missing with the existing checker (the one listing the attributes within the body of one table).

Thanks.

here's the new checker for GC9WT1A, extended from the GC9P0GZ checker:
https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC9WT1A/76122

I do agree that this looks better, the existing checker was indeed displaying numbers so that it didn't crash the html output.
Would this be okay, with keeping the GCA4QC6 checker (https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GCA4QC6/75761) as it is?

Thank you for all your time and effort building these checkers.

This checker looks great https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC9WT1A/76122 but I no longer qualify for the challenge. :-( I did qualify with the previous checker (just barely though). I wanted to verify with the previous checker (I believe it's https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC9WT1A/75760) but it's disabled now so I can't. Could it be because events are excluded from this new checker (like for GCA4QC6 challenge)? Events should not be excluded from GC9WT1A.

The only caveats I requested for this specific GC9WT1A challenge are:

• The Partnership, Lost and Found, and Needs Maintenance attributes can not be used for this challenge. All the rest of the attributes (108 positive and negative attributes) can be used for this challenge.
• To keep this challenge consistent with the other 2 in this series (GC8ZZVH and GC9CEQ0, not GCA4QC6), please exclude the cacher's own caches from being used for the challenge. In the past, cachers were able to log their own caches.
• Benchmarks and lab caches obviously can not be used for this challenge either.

========================
As for the other https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GCA4QC6/75761 checker, it's too bad it can't be the same output format as the GC9WT1A checker just to be consistent but I know you mentioned that the GC9WT1A checker wasn't built for this kind of challenge so I'll sign off on this checker as completed/resolved. Thank you again. I appreciate all the time and effort you've put into both of these checkers.

You’re right, the events were excluded for that one, I hd assumed the two were both the same in this regard. All fixed now, and you do correctly qualify (checked with the disabled one too that they give the same result). Owned caches and those specific attributes were already disallowed :) Hopefully we are nearly there now!

Perfect! Thank you. You can close this request now. Both checkers appear to be working as requested and their output matches my profile data anyways. :-)

Thank you for all your time and effort, and patience putting up with me. ;-)