FM2-347:Add support for _has and _has:...:not for ServiceRequest and …

[gitcliff]

LINK:https://issues.openmrs.org/browse/FM2-347

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #335 (b0c8a88) into master (6abb746) will decrease coverage by 0.48%.
The diff coverage is 32.14%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master     #335      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     80.22%   79.74%   -0.48%     
- Complexity     2214     2219       +5     
============================================
  Files           204      204              
  Lines          5941     5993      +52     
  Branches        704      707       +3     
============================================
+ Hits           4766     4779      +13     
- Misses          768      806      +38     
- Partials        407      408       +1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
.../fhir2/api/dao/impl/FhirServiceRequestDaoImpl.java	43.55% <0.00%> (-43.95%)	⬇️
.../providers/r3/ObservationFhirResourceProvider.java	96.43% <ø> (+7.14%)	⬆️
...iders/r3/ProcedureRequestFhirResourceProvider.java	91.67% <ø> (ø)
...oviders/r4/ServiceRequestFhirResourceProvider.java	85.71% <ø> (ø)
...org/openmrs/module/fhir2/api/dao/impl/BaseDao.java	65.52% <42.86%> (-0.81%)	⬇️
...ule/fhir2/api/dao/impl/FhirObservationDaoImpl.java	86.09% <71.43%> (-0.95%)	⬇️
...ule/fhir2/api/impl/FhirObservationServiceImpl.java	94.29% <100.00%> (+0.17%)	⬆️
.../fhir2/api/impl/FhirServiceRequestServiceImpl.java	87.50% <100.00%> (ø)
...rs/module/fhir2/api/search/SearchQueryInclude.java	87.98% <100.00%> (ø)
.../providers/r4/ObservationFhirResourceProvider.java	96.55% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 6 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6abb746...b0c8a88. Read the comment docs.

[gitcliff]

@ibacher kindly review

[ibacher]

PS I think the handling of the _has parameter should look something like this:

private void handleHasAndParam(Criteria criteria, HasAndListParam hasAndListParam) {
	if (hasAndListParam == null) {
		return;
	}

	DetachedCriteria detachedCriteria = DetachedCriteria.forClass(Obs.class);

	hasAndListParam.getValuesAsQueryTokens().stream().map(this::handleHasOrParam).filter(Optional::isPresent)
			.flatMap(Optional::get).forEach(detachedCriteria::add);
		
		
	criteria.add(Subqueries.exists(detachedCriteria));
}

private Optional<Stream<Criterion>> handleHasOrParam(HasOrListParam hasOrListParam) {
	if (hasOrListParam == null) {
		return Optional.empty();
	}

	return Optional.of(hasOrListParam.getValuesAsQueryTokens().stream().map(this::handleHasParam).filter(
			Optional::isPresent).map(Optional::get));
}

private Optional<Criterion> handleHasParam(HasParam hasParam) {
	if (hasParam == null) {
		return Optional.empty();
	}
		
	if (!FhirConstants.OBSERVATION.equals(hasParam.getTargetResourceType())) {
		return Optional.empty();
	}
}

(I've left out the mapping of the fields to the right criteria, but hopefully this outline is useful).

[gitcliff]

@ibacher thanks for the outline ,,,
i have added the field mapping

[ibacher]

@gitcliff Sorry it took me so long to add some comments here. I've tried to do so, if you're willing to take another look. One thing that's clearly missing here is some tests for the methods in question, which would be ideal.

[gitcliff]

hello @ibacher,,, i added some unit tests

[ibacher]

@gitcliff Thanks for the update on this. I've provided some updated thoughts on the central function to this account. Weirdly, the unit tests still don't seem to be actually using this new code. Maybe a good idea to look into why that is. Anyway, thanks a lot! 😁