Build Artifacts

Hi @nucleogenesis seems that there are conflicts that need to be resolved before I can test your latest changes here - the build artefacts above are from 4 days ago?
Nevertheless I also had a look with that asset and here are some minor considerations:

1. If I input the max number of characters for the Section title I am seeing issues in the editor. Otherwise from a learners point of view it looks ok:

2. It's possible to save a section without any questions - not sure what is the expected behavior here, but it might look like a glitch from a learner's point of view:

@pcenov the empty sections were a deliberate choice, we have a follow up issue to get rid of these at publish time to avoid this showing to learners: #12217

We wanted to leave the empty sections so that someone editing a quiz can leave something as 'work in progress'.

Replacing questions so far seems OK, still need to do more poking around, but we're not catching properly when the coach is trying to use the quiz title that already exists:

I did not realize this before, and I'm not saying it needs fixing now, but was the decision to contain the scope of the pool of available resources within each section (and not the whole quiz) intentional? In a sense that when a coach wants to replace a question in section 2, they only have available the resources they specifically selected for that section to select from, and if they wanted to use one of the questions from resources selected for section 1, they need to update the resources in section 2 first, and re-select those included in section 1, to be able to pick some questions from it to select for inserting in the section 2. Tad repetitive, imo... 🤔
cc @tomiwaoLE

Proposal to simplify the UX writing in this message:

More	Fewer

Saying Select N **more** questions to continue (when none are selected) or Select N **fewer** questions to continue sounds convoluted and unnecessarily complicated. Did we consider keeping the same straightforward message Select N questions to continue all the time (with the Replace button inactive) UNTIL the user selects exactly N questions?

Maybe add a ❗ icon at the beginning of that message too, to point the user's attention or similar... cc @tomiwaoLE

And after poking around the replacing questions long enough, I got this message that was blocking me from further editing (logs attached at the bottom):

db-logs.zip

but was the decision to contain the scope of the pool of available resources within each section (and not the whole quiz) intentional?

I recall mentioning this early on in the design discussion / review process when I was initially structuring things. This was the decided path forward, although I must say I agree with you that this makes for a slightly convoluted workflow.

As it stands now, I think we could do better with how we inform the user about how the resource selection stuff works. Perhaps messages explaining that you're selecting resources for this section if we keep things how they are.

(cc @tomiwaoLE @radinamatic @rtibbles )

Hi @nucleogenesis,
Here's a list with the issues I was able to find:

1. Since we are using the default title of 'Section 1' when I open the section settings I am expecting to see that title by default. Currently it's missing and when I attempt to manually enter it I see the 'Section titles must be unique within this quiz' message:

The same happens if I just enter any name, click the Apply settings button and then attempt to make and additional changes:

2. If I leave an interval after the title it can be saved looking as a duplicate. The same is valid if I enter the title with caps lock on:

3. When deleting a section with the default title, then that title is also missing in the confirmation message:

4. I can't select and start a practice quiz:

Thank you @pcenov -- I will make a follow-up issue for cleaning up the over-eager yet-also-failing validations. The practice quiz issue is being addressed in a separate PR by @rtibbles

With that, I think that we'll just need reviewer approval and can get this merged. I think it'd be helpful for #9759 to rebase on my work to see if the latest reported issues there are fixed here

Edit: Follow-up issue