Prefer Annotating Types Over Asserting

[JNygaard-Skylight]

PULL REQUEST

Summary

Where possible, annotate the returned value of the evaluate function instead of asserting it.

Related Issue

Fixes # n/a

Acceptance Criteria

n/a

Additional Information

We use the evaluate function from the fhirpath library throughout. the ecr-viewer. However, it is typed to return any. To take advantage of type hints in IDEs, we need to either assert the expected type, e.g., const rrDetails: Observation[] = evaluate(fhirBundle, mappings.rrDetails); or assert the expected type, e.g., const rrDetails = evaluate(fhirBundle, mappings.rrDetails) as Observation[];. Both options more-or-less do the same thing, but there are a few reasons to prefer annotation. In brief it is the difference between saying, "I know the type of this value, and throw an error if it does not fit this type," and "Treat this value as this type no matter what."

See:

• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47994926/detailed-differences-between-type-annotation-variable-type-and-type-assertion
• https://medium.com/@bsalwiczek/type-annotation-vs-assertion-in-typescript-one-important-difference-4f4df715b5fe

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 83.33333% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.56%. Comparing base (6f59c59) to head (9bd215d).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...wer/src/app/view-data/components/PatientBanner.tsx	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3042      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   86.82%   88.56%   +1.74%     
==========================================
  Files         219       82     -137     
  Lines       13612     4180    -9432     
  Branches      705      704       -1     
==========================================
- Hits        11818     3702    -8116     
+ Misses       1785      469    -1316     
  Partials        9        9              

Flag	Coverage Δ
ecr-viewer	90.05% <83.33%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
fhir-converter	?
ingestion	?
message-parser	?
message-refiner	?
orchestration	85.67% <ø> (ø)
record-linkage	?
trigger-code-reference	?
validation	?

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
.../ecr-viewer/src/app/services/ecrMetadataService.ts	92.64% <100.00%> (ø)
...viewer/src/app/services/evaluateFhirDataService.ts	94.89% <100.00%> (+0.48%)	⬆️
...ners/ecr-viewer/src/app/services/formatService.tsx	98.01% <100.00%> (ø)
...ainers/ecr-viewer/src/app/services/labsService.tsx	94.93% <100.00%> (ø)
...ecr-viewer/src/app/view-data/components/common.tsx	99.38% <100.00%> (ø)
...wer/src/app/view-data/components/PatientBanner.tsx	80.00% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 137 files with indirect coverage changes