openlmis-referencedata

Clone Tools
  • last updated a few seconds ago
Constraints
Constraints: committers
 
Constraints: files
Constraints: dates
Perhaps we could use the "associations" term? It was mentioned in one of the comments to the mockups.

Perhaps we could use the "associations" term? It was mentioned in one of the comments to the mockups.

Thanks for doing this. However, I don't think it's necessary to do class diagrams for all of our "infrastructure" classes (importers, DTOs, repositories, etc.). The important ones are the domain cl...

Thanks for doing this. However, I don't think it's necessary to do class diagrams for all of our "infrastructure" classes (importers, DTOs, repositories, etc.). The important ones are the domain classes (SupplyPartner and SupplyPartnerEntry) and how they relate to our existing reference data domain classes (program, supervisory node, etc.).

I didn't want to use the term "subscription" because I didn't want us to do it the way eLMIS does; duplicating a program and copying values over. They don't really seem like subscriptions to me. If...

I didn't want to use the term "subscription" because I didn't want us to do it the way eLMIS does; duplicating a program and copying values over. They don't really seem like subscriptions to me. If you feel entry is too generic, I am open to other suggestions. Perhaps mapping? But that seems about the same to me.

Ah yes, you're correct.

Ah yes, you're correct.

Agreed.

Agreed.

added

added

backend will handle null value for entries but I think it would be better to simply send an empty list instead of null

backend will handle null value for entries but I think it would be better to simply send an empty list instead of null

added

added

changed

changed

changed

changed

changed

changed

changed

changed

changed

changed

changed

changed

changed

changed

changed

changed

I thought that for PUT if a resource does not exist, a new one should be created with the given id

I thought that for PUT if a resource does not exist, a new one should be created with the given id

both fields make sense for me

both fields make sense for me

I think there was a reason why we decided to call this property as entries but I don't remember. I am okay with changing it to subscriptions but I would wait for Chongsun Ahn response

I think there was a reason why we decided to call this property as entries but I don't remember. I am okay with changing it to subscriptions but I would wait for Chongsun Ahn response

I would say if a request has null or it is not set then backend should treat it as an empty list.

I would say if a request has null or it is not set then backend should treat it as an empty list.

Łukasz Lewczyński CC Chongsun Ahn The entries seem pretty generic... I'm having trouble grasping what they are actually representing. The only name for them I found at one of the eLMIS screenshot i...

Łukasz Lewczyński
CC Chongsun Ahn
The entries seem pretty generic... I'm having trouble grasping what they are actually representing. The only name for them I found at one of the eLMIS screenshot is "Subscription", but I'm not sure about that. Perhaps a simple "Assignment"? Anyway, we should definitely rename it to the picked name so the naming is ubiquitous.

In eLMIS the Supply Partner also had Name and Code, should we add them Chongsun Ahn?

In eLMIS the Supply Partner also had Name and Code, should we add them Chongsun Ahn?

Same for the PUT below.

Same for the PUT below.

Or the token might be invalid. Same for others below.

Or the token might be invalid. Same for others below.

Technically a 400 is a bad request, so it might not simply be the query parameters that has an issue. Same for others below.

Technically a 400 is a bad request, so it might not simply be the query parameters that has an issue. Same for others below.

Why not a page?

Why not a page?

I think we should support that there may be a supply partner, but it may at any point not have any entries. All entries might be removed while configuring, or when first created, etc.

I think we should support that there may be a supply partner, but it may at any point not have any entries. All entries might be removed while configuring, or when first created, etc.

Revert "OLMIS-5493, add missing link"

This reverts commit 234e5fd93d2952d08a348e56a15d7eed1add4d5e.

Revert "OLMIS-5493, add redis to builder"

This reverts commit 1d19b0b93d8e64eb6f5f564e5ae3eb2b56ae30ec.