-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35
Conversation
78eab51
to
115471b
Compare
To keep the UI simpler, can we just ask for the code and not bother with the system? We are really just looking for a way to filter down the results to known implantable device types, and it seems unlikely that they would use the same code repeated in two separate codesystems in a small handful of patient records to make this technically needed. And if that sounds reasonable, I think it would be worthwhile to accept a comma separated list of codes to filter by instead of a single code, so you could paste in a long list of allowable device types and just validate any that are in that set. |
115471b
to
93c4864
Compare
If you run it without the device code filter, then rerun it with a bad filter (so none should come back), it still seems to know about the device it saw previously. Probably because we save references in the db and don't clear them? I don't know exactly how we want to handle this... might be a real pain. |
Making the Device sequence destroy all of the Device references when it starts wouldn't be difficult, just another special case to add. |
I think a special case to clear device references is fine. Just don't do it on all the us core profile tests (unless we really analyze the impact globally). |
93c4864
to
eba902b
Compare
@arscan The issue you raised should be addressed now. |
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 great, thanks!
This branch adds an input field for Device type. This is needed because the US Core Implantable Device profile only applies to implantable devices, but without specifying a Device type, there is no way for Inferno to differentiate between implantable and non-implantable devices.
Submitter:
Reviewer 1:
Name:
where appropriate, and accomplishes the task's purpose
Reviewer 2:
Name:
where appropriate, and accomplishes the task's purpose