BCDA-8154: Update capabilitystatement operation names #945
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
alex-dzeda
commented
May 29, 2024
| @@ -256,15 +256,15 @@ func CreateCapabilityStatement(reldate time.Time, relversion, baseurl string) *f | |||
| }, | |||
| Operation: []*fhirmodels.CapabilityStatement_Rest_Operation{ | |||
| { | |||
| Name: &fhirdatatypes.String{Value: "patient-export"}, | |||
| Name: &fhirdatatypes.String{Value: "export"}, | |||
alex-dzeda
commented
May 29, 2024
| Definition: &fhirdatatypes.Reference{ | ||
| Reference: &fhirdatatypes.Reference_Uri{ | ||
| Uri: &fhirdatatypes.String{Value: "http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/bulkdata/OperationDefinition/patient-export"}, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| Name: &fhirdatatypes.String{Value: "group-export"}, | ||
| Name: &fhirdatatypes.String{Value: "export"}, |
alex-dzeda
commented
May 29, 2024
| @@ -252,13 +252,13 @@ func CreateCapabilityStatement(reldate time.Time, relversion, baseurl string) *f | |||
| }, | |||
| Operation: []*fhirmodelCS.CapabilityStatement_Rest_Resource_Operation{ | |||
| { | |||
| Name: &fhirdatatypes.String{Value: "patient-export"}, | |||
| Name: &fhirdatatypes.String{Value: "export"}, | |||
alex-dzeda
commented
May 29, 2024
| Definition: &fhirdatatypes.Canonical{ | ||
| Value: "http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/bulkdata/OperationDefinition/patient-export", | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| Name: &fhirdatatypes.String{Value: "group-export"}, | ||
| Name: &fhirdatatypes.String{Value: "export"}, |
laurenkrugen-navapbc
approved these changes
May 29, 2024
I think this might be a larger initiative, and partially dependent upon what the DASG direction is for conformance; do all APIs need to pass Inferno testing? If so, then building it into regression may be an answer, for example. I can make some local instructions for us to test using inferno locally (to satisfy curiosity), but it may not be ready yet to put into a readme for the repo, until there's more direction |
alex-dzeda
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 10, 2024
This reverts commit 7ee0535.
alex-dzeda
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 10, 2024
Reverts #945 After further inspection, the warning we were getting with inferno appears to be a red herring. I've checked the V2 bulk api specification, and it clearly states that patient-export and group-export are the expected names. https://hl7.org/fhir/uv/bulkdata/CapabilityStatement-bulk-data.json.html (My bad)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
🎫 Ticket
https://jira.cms.gov/browse/BCDA-8154
🛠 Changes
Updated Operation names to meet FHIR spec
ℹ️ Context for reviewers
Names of operations in a CapabilityStatement should refer to, conceptually, an OperationDefinition code. In the case of an operation such as Patient/$export for the bulk FHIR IG, the parameter used to instantiate the operation is export, so patient-export should be changed to export.
There is also some odd auto-linting with this, which appears to go away after this is merged?
✅ Acceptance Validation
Updated + passed unit tests.
🔒 Security Implications
If any security implications apply, add Jason Ashbaugh (GitHub username: StewGoin) as a reviewer and do not merge this PR without his approval.