Stream: implementers
Topic: Extensions when _summary=true?
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 08 2018 at 19:08):
Is it prohibited to include any extensions when someone has asked for _summary=true view of a resource?
Brian Postlethwaite (Mar 08 2018 at 21:22):
Many of the servers (mine included) violate this is a few places, specifically in the conformance statement to include the security urls
Michel Rutten (Mar 08 2018 at 21:32):
Would such extension definitions then need to express isSummary = true, to be explicit and computable?
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 08 2018 at 21:37):
If we allow it at all, then yes allowing extensions to override isSummary would be appropriate/necessary
Michel Rutten (Mar 08 2018 at 21:47):
According to this table: http://build.fhir.org/elementdefinition.html#interpretation, the isSummary property is prohibited on root elements, including extension definitions. And child elements cannot override isSummary, including extension element within a profile. So I guess we're not allowing this right now.
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 08 2018 at 23:14):
I agree it's not technically allowed at present. I guess the more apt question is "should it be"? As Brian noted, current convention is ignoring the rule and I expect there will be other cases where rule violation is expected/necessary. That's a pretty strong argument for fixing the rule - especially before we lock it in stone.
Michel Rutten (Mar 09 2018 at 12:14):
Indeed, hence my Socratic question ;p
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 09 2018 at 14:41):
@Grahame Grieve - thoughts on this?
Grahame Grieve (Mar 09 2018 at 20:21):
Not sure. It's not about the type - it's about DomainResource.extension. It's definitely necessary to return some extensions when _summary=true but I do that as a special rule.
Grahame Grieve (Mar 09 2018 at 20:22):
I'm not sure that it's necessary to make it computable but even if we did, I don't think that solving it with extensions overriding the summary on their definition is right either
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 09 2018 at 20:45):
Well, right now returning those extensions is non-conformant, so we need to expose something that allows defining whether they're allowed or not.
Grahame Grieve (Mar 09 2018 at 23:33):
please explain why it's non conforment
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 10 2018 at 00:27):
You're right, it's not. But the current rules essentially mean that systems are free to totally ignore what's marked as "summary" and send whatever they like - is that really what we want?
Grahame Grieve (Mar 10 2018 at 09:07):
not sure
Lloyd McKenzie (Mar 10 2018 at 15:57):
Michael Lawley (Mar 17 2018 at 02:59):
I would have thought must understand extensions would need to be included?
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
