CAcert Code Development list.

[Karl-Heinz Gödderz <CAcert AT GuKK-Online.de>]

HI Dirk,

thank you for answering my question; this it was.

On the other hand I'm unused in bug-tracker and therefore I was looking
secondly for the search-parameters to find if this bug was filed. Any
hints, how to search? There are so many fields in the search-panel.

Greetings
Karl-Heinz

Am 04.07.2016 um 16:15 schrieb dirk astrath:
> Hello,
>
>> I noticed a bug  with calculating the points:
>> If an assurance is revoked, the experience-points are not adjusted.
>> So by assuring again, the experience points are given a second time.
>> Now I tried to find if this bug is filed already. What search parameters
>> are to be entered?
> This is a well-known bug.
>
> Within support we can revoke the assurance itself (under special
> circumstances like precedents case or ruling). This will not revoke the
> "2 Points administrative increase", which is used in the old points
> calculation. According to the precedents ruling these "2 Points
> administrative increase" will not be deleted ...
>
> Within the new points calculation this "2 Points administrative
> increase" is not used anymore: Every single assurance counts.
>
> If you have in your account a revoked assurance, you will now have a
> difference between old and new points calculation:
>
> An example:
>
> Given details: 10 Assurances done, 1 revoked = 9 valid
>
> Old points calculation: 10 assurances done, 20 experience-points
> New points calculation:  9 assurances done, 18 experience-points
>
> Why wasn't this changed for the old points calculation?
>
> Let me give another example:
>
> Given details: 30 Assurances done, 1 revoked = 29 valid
>
> Old points: 30 assurances done, 50 experience-points (limit at 50)
> New points: 29 assurances done, 58 experience-points (unlimited)
>
> If we now delete the "2 Points administrative increase" the assurer will
> only have 48 Points according to the old points calculation. To issue 35
> points, he has to do one additional assurance again.
>
> All in all:
>
> By switching to the new points calculation this "bug" will disappear.
>
> Kind regards,
> Dirk
>
> PS: Hopefully i calculated everything correctly within this mail ... ;-)
>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature