Notes:
- The fuzz seed is now derived from the card id and # of reps, so
if a card is undone and done again, the same fuzz will be used.
- The intervals shown on the answer buttons now include the fuzz, instead
of hiding it from the user. This will prevent questions about due dates
being different to what was shown on the buttons, but will create
questions about due dates being different for cards with the same
interval, and some people may find it distracting for learning cards.
The new approach is easier to reason about, but time will tell
whether it's a net gain or not.
- The env var we were using to shift the clock away from rollover for
unit tests has been repurposed to also disable fuzzing, which simplifies
the tests.
- Cards in filtered decks without scheduling now have the preview delay
fuzzed.
- Sub-day learning cards are mostly fuzzed like before, but will apply
the up-to-5-minutes of fuzz regardless of the time of day.
- The answer buttons now round minute values, as the fuzz on short
intervals is distracting.
This is not the way the code is intended to be used, but making it
conform to the existing API allows us to exercise the existing unit
tests and provides partial backwards compatibility.
- Leech handling is currently broken
- Fix answered_at in wrong units, and not being used
- Since we need to show this to new users until AnkiDroid is updated,
use a wording that doesn't seem so out of place to new users.
- Avoid mentioning syncing, since the user may not sync, and the
modSchema() call will allow the user to confirm anyway.
- Let the user know they can change their mind about AnkiDroid by
visiting the preferences.
This reverts commit 8372931b9b.
I fear this will be too disruptive - let's give AnkiDroid a bit more
time to catch up. Reverting this will mean new users are presented with
an upgrade notice on first startup, which looks a bit silly, but it's
probably the lesser of two evils.
- In corner cases, enabling the new timezone handling later can cause
reviews to shift forward or back a day, so it's best to have it on
by default.
- https://github.com/ankidroid/Anki-Android/issues/5805 has not landed
in a stable release yet, but will hopefully not be too far off by the
time 2.1.41 is released.
- Existing users will be unaffected, as the upgrade prompt in the previous
commit asks them if they use AnkiDroid.
- Users starting on AnkiDroid will be unaffected, as their collections
will still be on V1.
- The error message AnkiWeb gives when syncing an older AnkiDroid
with the new timezone enabled has been updated to direct users to the
preferences screen.
- Rework V2 upgrade so that it no longer resets cards in learning,
or empties filtered decks.
- V1 users will receive a message at the top of the deck list
encouraging them to upgrade, and they can upgrade directly from that
screen.
- The setting in the preferences screen has been removed, so users
will need to use an older Anki version if they wish to switch back to
V1.
- Prevent V2 exports with scheduling from being importable into a V1
collection - the code was previously allowing this when it shouldn't
have been.
- New collections still default to v1 at the moment.
Also add helper to get map of decks and deck configs, as there were
a few places in the codebase where that was required.
Not plugged into the Python code yet. Still a work in progress.
Other changes:
- move a bunch of From implementations out of the giant backend/mod.rs
file into separate submodules.
- reorder backend methods to match proto order
- fix some clippy lints
The previous approach worked when the user pushes their due date back,
or moves it forward a little bit, but breaks down if they reschedule
shortly after the previous answer - a card that was only just answered
will have had an effective delay of 0, causing the interval to be
reset, which is not great.
I thought about limiting interval reductions, but that means the
behaviour is inconsistent when sending a card forward and moving it
back again.
We could apply a cap to the amount of interval we'll reduce, but that
will either doing something like dividing by 2 (which breaks down when
the action is performed repeatedly), or or looking up the review log
to try and determine the previous interval we should not go below.
One other option we might want to consider in the future is using
the revlog to calculate the actual elapsed time at answer time instead
of reschedule time, falling back to existing behaviour when the revlog
doesn't match or is missing.
