Stream: committers
Topic: adding Product pattern
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 01 2019 at 08:13):
in my local build for a new pattern (logical model), the section numbers still show up as question marks, e.g.
"??.??.1 Scope and Usage"
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 01 2019 at 08:14):
What do i need to change?
BTW, a few hours ago, compartments.xml was not editable in excel. is it me?
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 01 2019 at 13:58):
Is it added to publish.ini?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 01 2019 at 16:58):
D'oh!
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 01 2019 at 16:58):
Will do it soon
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 01 2019 at 20:30):
How? publish.ini does not have the other patterns,... i can't find Event or Request there.
Grahame Grieve (Oct 01 2019 at 20:32):
heirachy.xml
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 01 2019 at 20:35):
on which module would Product be? the others are on workflow, is Product a workflow pattern?
Grahame Grieve (Oct 01 2019 at 20:38):
Don't know. Administration?
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 01 2019 at 20:40):
Technically it's managed by the workflow project, but agree listing it there would be confusing to most. I'm fine with Administration
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 03 2019 at 22:46):
What is a
Error processing /home/ubuntu/agents/01/_work/2/s/source/product/product-spreadsheet.xml: The markup in the document preceding the root element must be well-formed.
?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 03 2019 at 22:47):
it did build ok locally
Grahame Grieve (Oct 03 2019 at 22:51):
that's pretty strange. what does the xml look like?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 03 2019 at 23:00):
ah, i see. the conflict merge messed it up. will fix it
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 04 2019 at 18:23):
ok this is jinxed. I am getting this
Error: The spreadsheet /home/ubuntu/agents/01/_work/2/s/source/product/product-spreadsheet.xml was committed after editing in excel, but before the build could run after Excel was closed
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 04 2019 at 18:24):
but I did commit and push after excel was closed
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 04 2019 at 18:48):
should I e.g. delete the branch and recommit?
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 04 2019 at 20:14):
You have to close Excel, then run the build, then commit and push.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 04 2019 at 21:51):
that is what I wrote I did (did not mention the build part but that is implicit), and it was before dinner, so I am quite sure I did it right. rinse and repeat?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 04 2019 at 21:55):
I'm trying again. could be that I committed the wrong thing or did not stage the file
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 05 2019 at 06:13):
it seems to be ok now.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 05 2019 at 06:13):
Do you want to review, or I merge, or you merge?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 06 2019 at 15:02):
merged. We have a starting point. http://build.fhir.org/product
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 14 2019 at 21:02):
...
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 18 2019 at 20:06):
- Can I merge the Product updates with the updates we discussed? Or do I need a gforge tracker item?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 18 2019 at 20:06):
(@Lloyd McKenzie ? )
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 18 2019 at 20:16):
- For drafting a new resource type (NutritionProduct), I am thinking of this:
NutritionProduct.Ingredient[x]
where x is
CodeableConcept (e.g. fat, protein)
a nested @N utritionProduct
Not knowing if it makes sense (it's just a first idea), would the excel syntax support this?
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 18 2019 at 20:17):
Can't be nested. Can be a Reference. (And Reference could point to a contained resource)
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 18 2019 at 20:17):
No gforge required to fix draft content
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 18 2019 at 20:21):
so if we want to nest then we need to have two elements, right?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 18 2019 at 20:21):
(contained may be limiting)
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 18 2019 at 20:33):
You can't nest one resource inside another except using Reference pointing to a contained resource. We allow exceptions to that rule in very limited circumstances and this wouldn't be one of them.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 18 2019 at 21:08):
I remember nesting in ExampleScenario, plandefinition... are those the exceptions you mean?
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 19 2019 at 10:04):
No nesting of other resources there. Is that what we're talking about?
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 20 2019 at 11:52):
ah no. I mean nesting one resource in itself, as we do:
A nutrition product has ingredients, and each ingredient can be either a CodeableReference, or another NutritionProduct
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 20 2019 at 16:06):
You would still use Reference if you want to nest at the root level. Recursive references are only allowed for complex elements inside a resource
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 20 2019 at 16:47):
ok that was my question. I don't know if that is the ideal solution, but we need to analyse the use cases.
John Moehrke (Oct 21 2019 at 12:49):
@Jose Costa Teixeira are you asking about nesting a whole resource? Or just a Backbone element within a resource? Might all you need is nesting of a backbone element to make more and more complex nutritionProduts out of ingredents?
John Moehrke (Oct 21 2019 at 12:51):
simpler, but not able to be as modular
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 21 2019 at 13:01):
idea was nesting resource. I will re-check if nesting a backbone element is a way out.
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 21 2019 at 13:01):
TBH, we can nest resources, that is not an issue. Now I just need to know if that works in a polymorphic element
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 21 2019 at 14:10):
Nesting resources is not allowed - if you ever want to reference the root of a resource, you must use Reference or canonical.
Lloyd McKenzie (Oct 21 2019 at 14:11):
The only places we allow embedding one resource in another is for structural purposes (DomainResource.contained, Bundle.entry.resource and Parameters
Jose Costa Teixeira (Oct 21 2019 at 14:13):
ok. i see my confusion
Jose Costa Teixeira (Jan 23 2020 at 19:48):
Product.code is 0..1
How do we represent the several codes that a same product can have? (internal code, UPC code, etc)
Jose Costa Teixeira (Jan 23 2020 at 19:49):
Product.code is 0..1
How do we represent the several codes that a same product can have? (internal code, UPC code, etc)
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 23 2020 at 20:04):
Multiple codings
Lloyd McKenzie (Jan 23 2020 at 20:04):
They're all codes for the same product
Jose Costa Teixeira (Jan 23 2020 at 20:07):
right. somehow I was thinking product.code datatype was code, but is CodeableConcept. That will do it.
Thanks
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
