-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Radiology report exports #203
Conversation
monkeypatch-able class attribute.
Enable deferred annotations everywhere and fix annotations and comments (#206) * Defer annotations in all files and fix some pre-existing comment quirks * Applied ruff fixes with and without `--unsafe-fixes` flag * Some manual fixes
actual change] Merge branch 'main' into jeremy/issue-161-radiology
export, but some fields are missing.
Should fix failing CI, where the `tests-ehr-api` Docker was failing to launch.
Allows exporting radiology reports for specific project only
return value anyway.
extract to parquet. Need different accession numbers in test messages to avoid them getting de-duped. Test code was only fetching first row of query so above problem was harder to detect.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looking good, only blocking change is adding in a new endpoint to the hashing API, worth discussing that and then some other thoughts
hasher/src/hasher/endpoints.py
Outdated
@router.get( | ||
"/hash-image-identifier", | ||
summary="Produce secure hash appropriate for an image identifier " | ||
"(MRN + accession num concatenated)", | ||
) | ||
async def hash_image_identifier(message: str) -> Response: | ||
return Response(content=generate_hash(message, 64), media_type="application/text") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh this surprises me. Why are we making a seperate endpoint that has the same implementation as hash
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Mainly I was following the existing pattern. But do the different types of input even need different hashing methods? I'm not sure what the requirements are here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah I think the previous is a bit silly too. I'd remove and just use /hash
. I assume it was planned to do something like restricting the size of it like they did with accession number, but then that changed and they didn't remove the superflous extra endpoint
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Have removed the new endpoint. Shall we save the consolidation of the other endpoints for another PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe make a new issue so we don't forget / to discuss further?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good, couple of smaller changes but happy to merge once you've resolved them
Co-authored-by: Stef Piatek <s.piatek@ucl.ac.uk>
Define an API call in pixl ehr that triggers:
For a later PR:
Fixes #161