Community Assets Audit HOW?? [RFC]

[badwolf]

Im thinking that somebody needs to go down the list of assets and verify they are "correct".

i think there are currently some assets that have issues with CURRENT versions of MH and some assets that do not have textures linked correctly.


any ideas on how to verify this??

[loki1950]

Someone just has to take on the task we are an FOSS project after all then create a list of the adjustments required for v1.1 and the unstable branch as well.BTW the task need not include all assets to start and that way others may chime in to help.So I propose that this thread serves as a clearing area .

Enjoy the Choice

[badwolf]

we will of course need to check an reports against at least Windows and Mac or Linux to bypass any platform related "issues"

and if folks want to collect problem reports in this thread it will make it a bit easier for the mods to snag

If you can figure out what is happening and its a typo/error in the mhclo file then attach a fixed file here


JOEPAL i think there is already a posting with a group of "fixed" assets could you link that into this thread?? (or even better patch the copies in the git repo next time you do the update)

[joepal]

Fixing a broken asset is the responsibility of the asset's author. I'm not interested in taking on the job of editing assets personally.

There are automatic checks performed on each community export, see for example https://github.com/makehumancommunity/c ... g_files.md

A viable approach might be sending notice to the authors of these assets and then bulk delete all assets that are still broken a month later.

Since there is nothing stopping anyone else from re-uploading a fixed asset: if anyone find that these assets have any merit, they can fix the asset and upload a new copy in order to save them from deletion.

[wolgade]

Fixing a broken asset is the responsibility of the asset's author.

Exactly. It's a very bad idea to burden this on any MH official as these assets are in no way official.

There are automatic checks performed on each community export

Would it be possible to perform these checks when the asset is uploaded and reject broken assets? This way it would be impossible to create obviously broken stuff in the repo. Much better than cleaning up later.

A viable approach might be sending notice to the authors of these assets and then bulk delete all assets that are still broken a month later.

Good idea. Additionally the asset should be marked as a candidate for deletion. This could be done in the comment section. Anyone, not only the author, would be alarmed. If I care for the asset, I'll take action. If nobady cares, the asset might not be missed anyway.

[Aranuvir]

Maybe we should move broken assets to a beta-testing page instead of deleting them. Otherwise we would risk to permanently remove orphaned assets of high quality, which can be fixed by the user with little work. And on the other hand we have assets in the repo, which technically work, but just result in a big mess when using them.

In regard of the upcoming download plug-in, perhaps we could change mode of providing assets, anyway. Here a proposal:

1) every new asset goes to the beta testing
2) a jury of forum users (!) tests the assets against some predefined standard models and has to give constructive (!) critics if something doesn't work.
3) Assets passing the beta testing are moved to the normal assets repo.

[wolgade]

Otherwise we would risk to permanently remove orphaned assets of high quality, which can be fixed by the user with little work.

That's a valid point. On the other hand: If it can be fixed easily then simply fix it.

a jury of forum users (!) tests the assets against some predefined standard models and has to give constructive (!) critics if something doesn't work.

This requires a very active community. Do we have this? Chances are that a lot of stuff stays in the beta section forever.

[Aranuvir]

Even if something isn't easy to fix, e.g. the obj-file might still be useful. Perhaps someone wants to become foster mother/father to this orphaned asset.

This requires a very active community. Do we have this? Chances are that a lot of stuff stays in the beta section forever.

Indeed. And I don't think we have a very active community. My hidden agenda was to get people more active, when they have a function in the community.
The idea is to have a number of users, e.g. four, with the function of, let's say, power tester. They should have some basic knowledge of MC and fixing issues. New assets will be tested within a week. There should be some technical testing. Does the asset load without errors? E.g. the diffuse filename in the mhmat-file doesn't fit the filename of the diffuse png, this could be pointed to the author. Any license mismatch? (e.g. build in license of mhclo is AGPL and uploaded license is CC-By). Perhaps some naming conventions for files (ASCII only, no '-' or spaces, perhaps diffuse maps have diffuse in their name, normal maps have normal in their name...).
And some artistic tests. I know the one fits all approach will not work and if a want to use clothing modelled for a slim female, I will run into heavy trouble when creating an obese male transvestite. But, e.g. if I download Joel's crude female dress, I would expect this should fit a basic female by just moving the gender slider to maximum left. If the asset shows heavy distortions I will loose interest. An unisex clothing should fit the basic mesh after starting MH. What happens to the asset under extreme conditions (short/tall, cachectic/obese models)?
We do not necessarily need a beta testing area. Assets meeting these criteria could be moved to a premium assets area. If we define standard models for testing every author knows what is important to care for. Theoretically we even won't need a jury. Every user could do testing by these criteria and give feedback.

[joepal]

It'd be relatively easy to give all assets an extra field which only moderators can modify. This could have values such as "Validated high quality", "Normal", "Reported broken". In lists, this value could either be visible, or be a basis for sorting so that broken assets end up last. It'd also then be possible to exclude all broken assets from the asset downloader plugin. As and when the asset author fixes a broken asset, he can then ask a moderator to change the flag back to normal.

Then if a few users are interested enough to jump in as asset moderators, I could give them the ability to modify this value.

[loki1950]

Glad I started the discussion Like the new flag option as it seems to the simplest solution that and notification of the author.

Enjoy the Choice