-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Consider active flag in simple refset valid keys assertion #3
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Consider active flag in simple refset valid keys assertion #3
Conversation
…nentID's are both valid SCTID's and active components for Simple, Complex and Extended map refsets
…y refset with a refsetDescriptor record, that is a subset of another refset with a refsetDescriptor record, must have a refsetDescriptor that is either the same, or a specialisation of the parent's refset
- New inactive states follow active states in the ATTRIBUTEVALUE snapshot. - New inactive states follow active states in the ASSOCIATION REFSET snapshot file.
a857067
to
0f270eb
Compare
8693ded
to
34696d4
Compare
8f1adfd
to
099d726
Compare
5baa0c7
to
320b46c
Compare
21e1921
to
7d6b43b
Compare
9a46090
to
b95bdea
Compare
Thanks for the pull request @dionmcm. I agree the historical issues should be ignored, but I think your fix will also ignore current-cycle / new duplicates. Continuing your examples, let's pretend the next version is actually 20121130. In this situation, we want to flag up the error but ignore all historical issues. I have written up the query below, but it has went from ~3 seconds to ~13 seconds.
In the RVF template syntax, I think |
8369945
to
4d897f2
Compare
This is a test that is failing in the Australian edition. There are 30 rows in the history of the Australian edition where a concept has
That results in 2 rows in the snapshot where the refsetid and referencedcomponentid are the same, but at any given timepoints one is active and the other inactive (or nonexistent).
Here's an example from our release
There's nothing (I'm aware of) in the RF2 spec that makes this invalid, although I can see from the point of view of maintaining a compact snapshot it is desirable to reactivate the original refset member in this scenario rather than create a new member. That is also our practice for those reasons, and these are historical anomalies.
This suggestion is to add in the active field to account for this scenario. I'm not sure if there's an alternative with the RVF to instead whitelist for our release the affected historical rows?
Unfortunately this isn't something that can be "fixed" in the release anymore, even if we were to retire the new membership and reactivate the original one we'd still have two rows referencing he same concept for the same reference set id.