![]() 3.1.1.1 Example: link with one line item, tool has all permissions.Gradebook columns per resource link and the maximum points possible for each column. This specification also allows tools more control over the number of Replaces the Basic Outcomes service and updates the Result service included in The Learning Tools Interoperability® (LTI®)Īssignment and Grade Services specification, as described in this document, © 2023 IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. Public contributions, comments and questions can be posted here: IMPLEMENTER OR THIRD PARTY FOR ANY DAMAGES OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER,ĭIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ARISING FROM THE USE OF THIS SPECIFICATION. MEMBERS OR SUBMITTERS, SHALL HAVE ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER TO ANY IMPLEMENTER'S OWN RISK, AND NEITHER THE CONSORTIUM, NOR ANY OF ITS IN PARTICULAR, ANY WARRANTY OF NONINFRINGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED.ĪNY USE OF THIS SPECIFICATION SHALL BE MADE ENTIRELY AT THE THIS SPECIFICATION IS BEING OFFERED WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY WHATSOEVER, AND Revoked by IMS or its successors or assigns. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be Permission is granted to all parties to use excerpts from this documentĪs needed in producing requests for proposals. The license with IMS found on the IMS website: None of this should be interpreted as "we can't do it", just to explain why it's trickier than it looks on the surface.Use of this specification to develop products or services is governed by Some of those pieces are actually in place now (the graceful fallback from 1.7.4 to 1.7.2, Compare View lets you revert settings), but there's just more work to lay the groundwork and connect the dots. ![]() But we need to do it in a way that when it is a problem, we don't leave your property in an unrecoverable state. You're exactly right that "most of the time", it's no problem at all. If that fails, we have no choice but to make you go look at the resource to fix it (update to settings that validate, revert to previous settings, etc). But that means that any of the rule settings you saved under 1.7.4 now have to be validated against the schema from 1.7.2. Once there's a graceful fallback, it would really suck for you to have to go resave all the rules you had touched while 1.7.4 was installed, so we're not doing that. If you then downgrade back to 1.7.2, those rules are tied to an extension (by ID) that no longer exists, so we need a graceful fallback. In your scenario, any rules you saved while 1.7.4 was installed are tied to 1.7.4. ![]() Perhaps the Version numbering system can be some sort of indicator- upgrading from 1.7.4 to 1.7.5 isn't expected to make any changes to how rules/actions/etc would be set up, so there is a easier rollback option, but upgrading from 1.7.5 to 2.0.0 might require major changes and be less revertable?Īll true, and the keywords there are "most of the time". I'd expect a change to an extension to be similar. Kinda like how Extension configuration works- if I upgrade my Analytics extension's global settings (like RSID, or doPlugins), that change affects all of my rules, not just the rule I made changes to after I made after the upgrade. the fact that one change was made on one version and the other change was made on a newer version matters nothing to me as a user (though I get that it MAY matter to the backend). But most of the time, extension upgrades do not directly affect any of the things users are asking the extension to do- they're for bug fixes, or minor UX enhancements, etc.įor instance, if I'm on Adobe Analytics Extension 1.7.2, and set prop7 to some value in one rule, then upgrade to 1.7.4 and set prop7 in some other rule.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |