Skip to content
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

466 bug fix for group level scoring def, and concurrent mod exception #479

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 11, 2024

Conversation

Capt-Mac
Copy link
Contributor

closes #466

@Capt-Mac Capt-Mac requested a review from JPercival June 11, 2024 19:11
@Capt-Mac Capt-Mac linked an issue Jun 11, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
Copy link

Formatting check succeeded!

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 11, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 88.88889% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 62.00%. Comparing base (f4843b3) to head (4b1c2d6).

Files Patch % Lines
...ncds/cqf/fhir/cr/measure/r4/R4CareGapsService.java 88.88% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master     #479      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     61.96%   62.00%   +0.04%     
- Complexity     3548     3552       +4     
============================================
  Files           328      328              
  Lines         17576    17574       -2     
  Branches       2707     2707              
============================================
+ Hits          10891    10897       +6     
+ Misses         5476     5472       -4     
+ Partials       1209     1205       -4     

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

if (!measure.hasImprovementNotation()) {
ourLog.info("Measure does not specify an improvement notation so skipping: {}.", measure.getId());
measures.remove(measure);
ourLog.info(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thought: This is the type of validation we should push upstream. Then we can give specific feedback in an OperationOutcome about issues with the Measure. In general, we don't want to be lenient with these type of requirements. In this particular case, the improvement notation flips the meaning of the Measure. Good means bad, bad means good.

@JPercival JPercival merged commit 862b4b1 into master Jun 11, 2024
7 checks passed
@JPercival JPercival deleted the 466-care-gaps-concurrent-modification-exception branch June 11, 2024 20:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Care-Gaps Concurrent modification exception
2 participants