Stream: IPS
Topic: IPS specification updates on 'connectathon' branch'
Rob Hausam (Sep 01 2021 at 16:17):
I was intending to but then failed to mention this on the IPS call which just concluded, but the latest updates to the IPS FHIR IG specification that we were reviewing on the call are now all merged and pushed on the IPS IG connectathon branch. There are still some updates that need to be made, but the content is beginning to be relatively stable and will serve as the basis for much or most of what we intend to test during the Connectathon, which is coming up now in just under two weeks. Please ask questions or make any suggestions, and feel free to submit a pull request if there is something that you see that needs to be changed (I'm sure there are plenty of possibilities for that!). We will use the results of the Connectathon testing to determine the final updates that we need to make for publishing the StU update (or if we believe the changes that we have made are significant enough and need further input, we might consider going for another ballot round prior to publishing an updated version).
Peter Jordan (Sep 01 2021 at 20:10):
It would be helpful if 'Connectathon Build' was somehow reflected in the version in the title banner. As it stands it's '1.0.0 CI Build' - i.e. the same as the continuous build version.
Rob Hausam (Sep 01 2021 at 20:18):
Yeah, that's a standard "feature". :) But there probably is something that I can do to adjust it - I'll look at it and see what I can do. After the IPS call today I've actually discovered another potential opportunity to allow us to make somewhat less "radical" changes to the currently published spec. So if that pans out reasonably well later today, we may have two 'connectathon' branches (e.g., 'connectathon-2') that we can test. I'm not sure if that's actually good or bad - but we can see.
Jens Villadsen (Sep 02 2021 at 08:11):
how about naming the branch and build connectathon-28?
Rob Hausam (Sep 02 2021 at 13:46):
Not a bad idea. I think I'd rather leave it as it is for this time since the Connectathon is already so close. But I can do that in the future.
Peter Jordan (Sep 13 2021 at 20:18):
What version can Inferno be used to test against? @Rob Hausam , @Matt Rahn I'm keen to test my IPS instances using the Bundle Profile.
Grahame Grieve (Sep 13 2021 at 20:22):
hey @Rob Hausam we haevn't actually published a version of the IPS that has the Bundle profile in it have we? we haven't even got the bundle profile in the ci-build?
Rob Hausam (Sep 13 2021 at 20:25):
Yes. What I last heard is that Inferno right now supports a somewhat earlier version of the 'connectathon' branch - but I don't know for sure yet if that actually includes the Bundle profile? I'm happy if we can explore updating that capability so that it can support the 'connectathon-2' branch - but we'll have to see what can be done on that. @Reece Adamson? @Yunwei Wang?
And no, @Grahame Grieve, the Bundle profile isn't in the published or the current CI versions, but it is in the 'connectathon-2' (and also 'connectathon') branch.
Rob Hausam (Sep 13 2021 at 20:25):
We're trying to get there. :)
Yunwei Wang (Sep 13 2021 at 21:01):
It is based on the Bundle profile from May Connectathon. I think it is here
Rob Hausam (Sep 13 2021 at 21:08):
Yes, that would make sense. The Bundle profile itself I don't think has changed much since then (if at all), but overall the 'connectathon' branch has moved on a fair bit in some areas since then. We would need to tag a specific revision (as a new branch) to have exactly what Inferno is supporting.
Grahame Grieve (Sep 13 2021 at 21:54):
it'd be really nice if we could get the bundle profile into the ci-build. is there any procedural reason not to do that?
Reece Adamson (Sep 14 2021 at 12:16):
@Rob Hausam Inferno team is working on updating to connectathon-2 branch with tests for both the base and cross border profiles.
Rob Hausam (Sep 14 2021 at 12:18):
That's excellent, Reece. I appreciate you and the team doing that!
Rob Hausam (Sep 14 2021 at 12:25):
@Grahame Grieve I agree that we should have all of this in the CI build. We were using the branches to test some different strategies for updating before committing to a particular one, but I think we seem to be settled sufficiently on that to move ahead. The other practical consideration is that I need to create proper Jira issues for all of the updates (I think 67 commits beyond master at the moment). That should shrink a fair bit once I do a rebase, though, as at least the multitudinous txcache updates will be able to be rolled into one. There will still be a good number of trackers to create, but hopefully it's manageable. I'll try it out on a test branch first and see if it's feasible to do today.
Grahame Grieve (Sep 14 2021 at 17:46):
we should not regard having a bundle profile as a strategy we're trying out. I won't comment on other issues
Rob Hausam (Sep 14 2021 at 17:53):
Agree. We just hadn't started out with a Bundle profile (even though we probably should have), and we added it in the course of "trying out" the other updates. We can certainly add the Bundle profile to the CI build independently - and that is one thing for sure that I can take care of now.
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
