Fix/judge redistribution #346

phlangiee · 2025-11-24T23:39:53Z

changed to 2 judges assigned per match
to match again: then get prev pairings and not pair them, move onto next judge that isnt already paired with them

…hecking

…orithm checks for that)

…urrent matches

Copilot

Pull request overview

This pull request modifies the judge-to-team matching algorithm to assign 2 judges per match instead of 3, and implements logic to avoid re-pairing judges with teams they've previously evaluated. The changes retrieve existing judge-team pairings from the submissions collection and use them to prevent duplicate assignments when generating new matches.

Changes:

Reduced the number of judges assigned per team from 3 to 2
Added logic to fetch previous judge-team pairings and prevent duplicate assignments
Updated validation logic to reflect the new 2-judge requirement
Removed safety check for existing submissions to allow re-matching

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 7 comments.

File	Description
app/(api)/_utils/matching/judgesToTeamsAlgorithm.ts	Changed rounds from 3 to 2, integrated GetJudgeToTeamPairings to retrieve existing pairings, added String() conversions for ID comparison, and implemented splice logic to remove previous pairings after matching
app/(api)/_datalib/judgeToTeam/getJudgeToTeamPairings.ts	New function that retrieves all existing judge-team pairings from the submissions collection and converts them to the JudgeToTeam format
app/(api)/_actions/logic/matchTeams.ts	Commented out the check that prevented matching when submissions exist, added debug logging, and updated error messages
app/(api)/_actions/logic/checkMatches.ts	Updated validation to require 2 judges per team instead of 3

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

app/(api)/_datalib/judgeToTeam/getJudgeToTeamPairings.ts

app/(api)/_utils/matching/judgesToTeamsAlgorithm.ts

app/(api)/_datalib/judgeToTeam/getJudgeToTeamPairings.ts

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

app/(api)/_datalib/judgeToTeam/getJudgeToTeamPairings.ts

app/(api)/_actions/logic/matchTeams.ts

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Also add a comment so Copilot Code Review doesn't complain again.

ReehalS · 2026-02-06T04:42:44Z

Seems ready to merge, will just check w copilot once

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 7 out of 7 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2026-02-06T04:47:44Z

app/(api)/_actions/logic/applyDiagnosticAlpha.ts

+  const maxRounds = 4;
+  const maxSubmissions = teams.length * maxRounds;
+  const isSecondRound = existingCount > 0;
+
+  if (existingCount >= maxSubmissions) {
    return {
      ok: false,
      body: null,
-      error: `GetManyTeams error: ${teamsRes.error}`,
+      error:
+        'Two rounds have already been completed. Clear submissions to rerun.',
    };


The variable name maxRounds is misleading. It's set to 4, but it actually represents the maximum total number of judge assignments per team across multiple executions, not the number of rounds per execution (which is 2). Consider renaming to maxJudgesPerTeam or maxTotalAssignments for clarity. Additionally, the error message "Two rounds have already been completed" is confusing because it suggests two execution rounds, but the check allows for exactly that (2 executions × 2 judges per execution = 4 total). Consider changing the message to "Maximum judge assignments reached (4 judges per team). Clear submissions to rerun."

Copilot · 2026-02-06T04:47:45Z

app/(api)/_utils/matching/judgesToTeamsAlgorithm.ts

+  if (!previousPairings.ok || !previousPairings.body) {
+    throw new Error(
+      `Failed to load existing judge-to-team pairings: ${
+        previousPairings.error ?? 'Unknown error'
+      }`
+    );
+  }


The check for !previousPairings.body is redundant and potentially confusing. When previousPairings.ok is true, the body will always be an array (empty or populated), never null. The current condition correctly handles the empty array case (no previous pairings) since an empty array is truthy. However, for clarity and type safety, consider removing the !previousPairings.body check and relying solely on !previousPairings.ok, or explicitly check for null if that's the intended behavior.

Copilot · 2026-02-06T04:47:45Z

app/(api)/_actions/logic/matchTeams.ts

@@ -65,7 +66,7 @@ export default async function matchTeams(
    return {
      ok: false,
      body: null,
-      error: 'Invalid submissions.',
+      error: 'Invalid submissions.2',


The error messages 'Invalid submissions.1' and 'Invalid submissions.2' are not descriptive enough for debugging. Consider using more specific messages that explain what validation failed or include the actual error from the underlying operation. For example, 'Invalid submissions.1' could be 'Failed to create submissions in database' and include the actual error details.

Copilot · 2026-02-06T04:47:45Z

app/(api)/_utils/matching/judgesToTeamsAlgorithm.ts

+  // Remove the previous pairings
+  if (previousPairings.ok && previousPairings.body) {
+    judgeToTeam.splice(0, previousPairings.body.length);


The splice operation that removes previous pairings from the judgeToTeam array is fragile and relies on the array maintaining insertion order. While this currently works because only push operations are used, consider a more robust approach such as tracking the index where new pairings start, or filtering out previous pairings by creating a Set of previous pairing IDs and filtering the array based on that. This would make the code more maintainable and less prone to bugs if the array manipulation logic changes in the future.

Suggested change

// Remove the previous pairings

if (previousPairings.ok && previousPairings.body) {

judgeToTeam.splice(0, previousPairings.body.length);

// Remove the previous pairings without relying on array insertion order.

if (previousPairings.ok && previousPairings.body) {

const previousPairingKeySet = new Set(

previousPairings.body.map((pairing) => {

const judgeId = String(pairing.judge_id);

const teamId = String(pairing.team_id);

return `${judgeId}::${teamId}`;

})

);

const filteredJudgeToTeam = judgeToTeam.filter((entry) => {

const judgeId = String(entry.judge_id);

const teamId = String(entry.team_id);

const key = `${judgeId}::${teamId}`;

return !previousPairingKeySet.has(key);

});

// Mutate the existing array in place so any references remain valid.

judgeToTeam.length = 0;

judgeToTeam.push(...filteredJudgeToTeam);

ReehalS

I'm not having Copilot review it again otherwise this PR will never get merged. Its comments so far have been mostly useful but doing more will lead to this getting delayed more and more

phlangiee added 7 commits November 18, 2025 02:10

Get the judge to team pairings from the previous round

fe249d7

Oppsie i accidentiy deleted catch

ff8dfd8

Ignores judge to team pair if they were paired before (hopefully)

e4307c6

Fixed bugs: current number of rounds did not match validation error c…

be0cd95

…hecking

Commented out submissions validation error check (because current alg…

713ea5e

…orithm checks for that)

Fixed bug: type mismatch with JudgeToTeam previous pairings and the c…

b961928

…urrent matches

Fixed comments

0d1e82b

phlangiee linked an issue Nov 24, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request

Judge to team algorithm: Update to a 2-batch system #344

Open

phlangiee had a problem deploying to development November 24, 2025 23:39 — with GitHub Actions Failure

Formatting code (for eslint </3)

d96eda6

phlangiee temporarily deployed to development November 24, 2025 23:52 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into fix/judge-redistribution

177a558

phlangiee temporarily deployed to development November 25, 2025 00:00 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

ReehalS requested review from ReehalS and Copilot January 29, 2026 23:22

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of ReehalS January 29, 2026 23:22 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

ReehalS requested a review from Copilot January 30, 2026 00:38

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of ReehalS January 30, 2026 00:39 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

app/(api)/_datalib/judgeToTeam/getJudgeToTeamPairings.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

app/(api)/_actions/logic/matchTeams.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

app/(api)/_actions/logic/matchTeams.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

Update app/(api)/_datalib/judgeToTeam/getJudgeToTeamPairings.ts

d13b25d

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

ReehalS had a problem deploying to development January 30, 2026 00:53 — with GitHub Actions Failure

Force fail if getJudgeToTeamPairings fails

aa1cf17

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

ReehalS had a problem deploying to development January 30, 2026 00:53 — with GitHub Actions Failure

Defensive check for previousPairings.ok before body check

6652219

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

ReehalS had a problem deploying to development January 30, 2026 00:55 — with GitHub Actions Failure

Update getJudgeToTeamPairings.ts

000482a

ReehalS temporarily deployed to development January 30, 2026 01:55 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

Update page to allow multiple rounds now.

c79a9a4

ReehalS temporarily deployed to development January 30, 2026 02:50 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

Merge branch 'main' into fix/judge-redistribution

02d3e2d

ReehalS temporarily deployed to development January 30, 2026 02:57 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

Merge branch 'main' into fix/judge-redistribution

8839f35

ReehalS temporarily deployed to development January 30, 2026 04:27 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

ReehalS linked an issue Feb 5, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request

Fix/Judge Redistribution #363

Closed

Add tests for judgeToTeam

98e31fc

ReehalS had a problem deploying to development February 6, 2026 04:33 — with GitHub Actions Failure

Update test for judgeToTeam

2b9832d

Also add a comment so Copilot Code Review doesn't complain again.

ReehalS temporarily deployed to development February 6, 2026 04:40 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

ReehalS requested a review from Copilot February 6, 2026 04:42

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of ReehalS February 6, 2026 04:42 View session

ReehalS previously approved these changes Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI reviewed Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

Address copilot comments

8e0fb49

ReehalS dismissed their stale review via 8e0fb49 February 6, 2026 05:01

ReehalS temporarily deployed to development February 6, 2026 05:01 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

ReehalS approved these changes Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

ReehalS merged commit 4e07acc into main Feb 6, 2026
2 checks passed

ReehalS deleted the fix/judge-redistribution branch February 6, 2026 05:20

-  // Remove the previous pairings
-  if (previousPairings.ok && previousPairings.body) {
-    judgeToTeam.splice(0, previousPairings.body.length);
+  // Remove the previous pairings without relying on array insertion order.
+  if (previousPairings.ok && previousPairings.body) {
+    const previousPairingKeySet = new Set(
+      previousPairings.body.map((pairing) => {
+        const judgeId = String(pairing.judge_id);
+        const teamId = String(pairing.team_id);
+        return `${judgeId}::${teamId}`;
+      })
+    );
+    const filteredJudgeToTeam = judgeToTeam.filter((entry) => {
+      const judgeId = String(entry.judge_id);
+      const teamId = String(entry.team_id);
+      const key = `${judgeId}::${teamId}`;
+      return !previousPairingKeySet.has(key);
+    });
+    // Mutate the existing array in place so any references remain valid.
+    judgeToTeam.length = 0;
+    judgeToTeam.push(...filteredJudgeToTeam);

Fix/judge redistribution #346

Fix/judge redistribution #346

Uh oh!

Conversation

phlangiee commented Nov 24, 2025 • edited by michelleyeoh Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ReehalS commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Feb 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ReehalS left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

phlangiee commented Nov 24, 2025 •

edited by michelleyeoh

Loading