Stream: conformance
Topic: upload package to Simplifier
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 12:48):
Is there a way to upload packages created with Torinox to Simplifier?
I have created a package locally, but uploading to Simplifier returns
Initializing... Starting upload ... Parsing resources to list of ImportFiles took: 00:00:00.0393055 Metadata could not be extracted! Import failed!
Since I want to package an older version of the project I have saved locally I can't create it directly in Simplifier...
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 12:51):
BTW, I used pack (<path>) | Creates a FHIR package from a folder to create the package
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 13:26):
We don't have a method of pushing a package directly to Simplifier (yet).
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 13:26):
We have the intent on importing a package directly into a project.
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 13:27):
And we are considering allowing direct pushing of packages. But that would bypass a lot of Quality Assurance.
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 14:05):
What's the difference between direct import and direct push?
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 14:05):
The difference i meant was more of Packages vs. Projects.
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 14:06):
So: we are going to build importing/pushing to your project.
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 14:06):
We're not sure yet we're going to build a push to the package repository directly.
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 14:08):
Ok, I guess our use case of wanting to retrospectively create a package of a past version of a project is rather unique...
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 14:08):
;-)
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 14:29):
Problem is: we have a profile hosted on Simplifier that derived from an older version of the "basis-DE" project. We still have the older version saved, but currently we have no way to declare a dependency on this version in the derived profile, because we can only create a package from the current version.
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 14:29):
Darn :)
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 14:29):
Well, that's not exactly true. I did create a package with Torinox.
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 14:30):
I just have no way to declare a dependency on it....
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 14:30):
Why not?
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 14:31):
Because Simplifier doesn't know the package
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 14:31):
Ah, because you created it locally.
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 14:31):
ok. I could declare it, but it wouldn't resolve :D
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 14:32):
Yes. I see.
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 14:32):
What if the package was hosted on a different npm server. Could I declare a dependency then?
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 14:32):
Not yet. At least not for Torinox.
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 14:33):
But It's a valid use case for us to solve. Give me a bit of time to think about it. Or are you in a hurry?
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 14:33):
No, not really :)
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 14:34):
Ok. I will let you know. We 've had some ideas in the past, that you could go back in time to a specific upload (transactionid). But that's not implemented yet.
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 14:34):
We've also thought about branches. But we didn't want to build github :)
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 14:38):
IIRC Simplifier builds the packages internally by saving version specific urls, right?
So theoretically, It should be possible to create a package by providing a timestamp and simplifier could then package the resources with whatever the valid version at that time was... However the results might be unpredictable since we may have deleted and re-uploaded resources with identical canonical urls but different IDs. I remember we had issues with duplicates at some point...
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 14:40):
Didn't the _history interaction have an _at=<timestamp> parameter...?
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 14:40):
Yes. But we don't do soft deletes yet.
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 14:52):
I mean, if the packaging mechanism took an optional timestamp as parameter, simplifier could probably just append ?_at=<timestamp> instead of packaging the current version. The problem is in making sure that all resources in the project get packaged, not only those that do have a current version...
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 15:05):
You still have the 'older' version locally on disk, correct?
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 15:05):
Yep
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 15:06):
also on a gitHub branch
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 15:06):
So, you could always upload that to a new project and create a package.
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 15:06):
from there.
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 15:06):
Yes
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 15:07):
In one of the next release, we are going to allow orphan packages. -- packages where there is no longer a link to the project.
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 15:07):
so that you can delete a project, without deleting the packages.
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 15:07):
Ah! Awesome!
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 15:09):
Could the project in the meanwhile be a private project?
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 15:09):
Currently we are working out the relationship between packages and private projects.
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 15:10):
It's a hard problem :)
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 15:10):
Oh, and remember, you cannot yet create a package with the same package name in a different project.
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 15:10):
So is it problematic if that older version has a different package name?
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 15:12):
No. I think we could live with that...
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 15:13):
Could Simplifier currently resolve a dependency to a package in a private project?
Martijn Harthoorn (Oct 10 2018 at 15:14):
In our current implementation, you can only consume packages of private projects if you have access (membership) of that project.
We acknowledge that that won't do.
So we are working out a solution, and we're thinking in the direction of 'package feeds'.
Simone Heckmann (Oct 10 2018 at 15:20):
Great! Looks like there's going to be options :)
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
