CheckMate: Options to identify Inconsistency in Source and Inconsistency in Target

[Former user]

Original issue 238 created by nrawal.... on 2012-05-29T21:59:57.000Z:

It would be nice to have the following Configuration setting:
a. Report Inconsistencies in Source
E.g. Different source segment with same translations.

b. Report Inconsistencies in Target
E.g. Same source segment translated differently.

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
List of Inconsistencies found in Source and Inconsistencies found in Target.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
CheckMate v0.15
Java Version: 1.7.0_03
Windows 7 - 64-bit

Please provide any additional information below.

[Former user]

Comment [1.](https://code.google.com/p/okapi/issues/detail?id=238#c1) originally posted by nrawal.... on 2012-05-31T18:06:33.000Z:

This is NOT a defect. It is actually an Enhancement request.

[Former user]

Comment [2.](https://code.google.com/p/okapi/issues/detail?id=238#c2) originally posted by @ysavourel on 2012-05-31T19:33:36.000Z:

[Former user]

Comment [3.](https://code.google.com/p/okapi/issues/detail?id=238#c3) originally posted by @ysavourel on 2012-06-01T07:23:34.000Z:

Yes, having a list of the target with the same source but translated differently and the list of the same target with different source would be quite nice.

The issue is the implementation: this requires to somehow compare each source/target to all the others. It's easy to do with a database back-end. But not with simple input files. We will have to find a way to do this using some temporary storage.

[Former user]

Comment [4.](https://code.google.com/p/okapi/issues/detail?id=238#c4) originally posted by nrawal.... on 2012-06-04T13:20:35.000Z:

I agree with you.I looked at another tool called XBench and it has this feature. It is quite a helpful feature.

[Former user]

Comment 5. originally posted by nrawal.... on 2013-01-07T20:03:44.000Z:

Yves, did you had chance to look this issue in details.

[Former user]

Comment 6. originally posted by @ysavourel on 2013-01-08T12:15:54.000Z:

We are working right now on changing the way the checks are done: allowing them to be performed in separate steps and marked with annotations. The idea is to allow a) more steps rather than just one, and b) to markup not just parts of the content, but text units, groups, files, etc.
One of the verification we should be able to do with this is comparison between content and therefore detection of differences.
So it's coming.

[Former user]

Comment 7. originally posted by nrawal.... on 2013-01-08T16:36:33.000Z:

That's great. Do you have ETA on this?
I am studying your code and may be able to assist in coding at some stage.

[Former user]

Comment 8. originally posted by @ysavourel on 2013-01-09T15:11:19.000Z:

No ETA yet. There is all the annotation mechanism to put in place, etc.
But it is part of the tasks we are working on right now, as part of our implementation of the ITS Localization Quality issue data category (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#lqissue). I'm hoping to be able to demonstrate some of this at a conference in June, so this should be implemented within 2-3 months.

[Former user]

Comment 9. originally posted by nrawal.... on 2013-06-05T15:02:01.000Z:

Can you please provide an update on this enhancement request? Any changes of it making into your next release.

[Former user]

Comment 10. originally posted by @ysavourel on 2013-06-05T17:33:25.000Z:

issue #269 has been merged into this issue.

[Former user]

Comment 11. originally posted by @ysavourel on 2013-06-05T17:33:51.000Z:

issue #268 has been merged into this issue.

[Former user]

Comment 12. originally posted by @ysavourel on 2013-06-05T17:37:12.000Z:

We did made some progress on implementing ITS LQI and CheckMate and the Quality Checker step. But the verification of duplicated source/target has not made it yet.
It a feature I'd like to see: checking consistency is quite important. But we simply have several things that have higher priority currently.

[Former user]

Comment 13. originally posted by @ysavourel on 2013-09-04T05:58:18.000Z:

The Inconsistency Check Step now allows you to detect source and target inconsistencies.

It is not yet integrated with CheckMate, but can be run from any pipeline. It will be integrated with CheckMate later.

[Former user]

Comment 14. originally posted by nrawal.... on 2013-09-04T12:55:57.000Z:

That's great. Are you using any DB in the background?

[Former user]

Comment 15. originally posted by @ysavourel on 2013-09-04T12:58:45.000Z:

Not currently. So you may run into size limitations (it should be quite high).
But that may be an enhancement we do if size becomes an issue for too many.
Feedback is welcome.

[Jim Hargrave (OLD)]

Fixed in latest okapi