Special limits

[fagu]

We would like a way for administrators to run submissions with increased time / memory limits. This would be very useful for unit tests as well as for testing specific submissions during the contest. This pull request would add two optional fields to each submission specifying the special time and memory limits. They can only be set by submitting a solution via api as an administrator.

It is theoretically possible to emulate this behavior by creating extra datasets with different limits, but one would have to manually trigger an evaluation of the submission on the dataset, and it seems quite error-prone and confusing.

I wasn't sure what database updaters would need to be written. (Maybe none as we are only adding two fields, which have default values?)

There is no indication of the special time / memory limits in the admin interface. We'd be happy to add some if you like.

One thing one needs to be aware of is that this in interactive tasks, the controller wall limit is not automatically adjusted to accommodate the larger solution time limit. But we think it can be set to a large value in the first place as it seems to be only a guard against controller bugs.

The code was written with @PH111P.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.48936% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 56.84%. Comparing base (3277ca5) to head (cfbba73).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
cms/grading/Job.py	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
cms/server/contest/submission/workflow.py	50.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1731      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   56.72%   56.84%   +0.12%     
==========================================
  Files         344      344              
  Lines       28314    28360      +46     
==========================================
+ Hits        16060    16122      +62     
+ Misses      12254    12238      -16     

Flag	Coverage Δ
functionaltests	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
unittests	56.84% <91.48%> (+0.12%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[veluca93]

This seems reasonable to me, but why not call the fields override_ instead of special_? It seems more consistent with the other API parameters and I think sounds more natural to me.

[fagu]

This seems reasonable to me, but why not call the fields override_ instead of special_? It seems more consistent with the other API parameters and I think sounds more natural to me.

Good idea. Changed.

[prandla]

LGTM other than the one nitpick