Paweł Lal

I can edit the validateRequisition function to return two values, one about requisition validity and one with error message. This way there will be an ability to add more messages in the future. Wh...

I can edit the validateRequisition function to return two values, one about requisition validity and one with error message. This way there will be an ability to add more messages in the future. What do you think?

Reopen: Removed notification on language change.

Reopen: Removed notification on language change.

OLMIS-1892: Other languages available to select but not supported.
OLMIS-1892: Other languages available to select but not supported.
It's logical, but since we want two separate notification messages I needed to divide them somehow (one message for overall validation, and one for validating if all line items are skipped). If we ...

It's logical, but since we want two separate notification messages I needed to divide them somehow (one message for overall validation, and one for validating if all line items are skipped).
If we want to keep validateRequisition, we might want to adjust it to return some kind of code rather than plain true/false value to make sure we know which part did not pass validation.

OLMIS-1961: Success message on requisition submit even when the submit fails
OLMIS-1961: Success message on requisition submit even when the submit fails
We decided (on slack) that there is a need to add validation to check if all line items are skipped so I added one with specific error.

We decided (on slack) that there is a need to add validation to check if all line items are skipped so I added one with specific error.

When I was checking locally the page content did not change on window reload without this but I'll do a double check and let you know. Edit: Indeed, state isn't needed, I removed it, there might h...

When I was checking locally the page content did not change on window reload without this but I'll do a double check and let you know.

Edit: Indeed, state isn't needed, I removed it, there might have been a problem with my cache.

Nick Reid I made some changes according to your comment, let me know if they look okay. The idea of using the grunt-force-task might not be the best but I didn't find anything better at the moment ...

Nick Reid I made some changes according to your comment, let me know if they look okay. The idea of using the grunt-force-task might not be the best but I didn't find anything better at the moment to deal with passing incorrect credentials to transifex.

I added the transifex process, everything should work properly now. I also moved the messages_en.json file to /src/main/webapp/ (left .js in .tmp since it's generated). The messages task are now fo...

I added the transifex process, everything should work properly now. I also moved the messages_en.json file to /src/main/webapp/ (left .js in .tmp since it's generated).
The messages task are now forced in build in order to prevent errors when wrong transifex credentials were provided.

A separate ticket might be a good idea, but currently, I'll need to call the transifex somehow between messages:merge and messages:make - probably running the shell script from NodeJS would make it...

A separate ticket might be a good idea, but currently, I'll need to call the transifex somehow between messages:merge and messages:make - probably running the shell script from NodeJS would make it.
I checked how my task works with transifex 'by hand' and after changing paths in tx script everything looks okay, the only problem is that I need to, as I mentioned, call it in between of these two tasks.

I'm not sure how complicated would the transifex integration be, so let me know if above solution is good as temporary one, and I'll make a decision tomorrow after familiarizing with this package a little more.

Hi Nick Reid, I updated review with my latest changes. As you can see, I updated step (1) and restored step (3). I'm not sure if it's part of the ticket, but I also started looking into the way fil...

Hi Nick Reid, I updated review with my latest changes. As you can see, I updated step (1) and restored step (3). I'm not sure if it's part of the ticket, but I also started looking into the way files are send and received from transifex to correct directories and merge all of these steps together.

Restructure translation string build process
Restructure translation string build process
Nick Reid I changed the messages script to look for messages in all folders under '/src/main/webapp' and create one messages.js file with all these message files combined. Let me know if it's okay ...

Nick Reid I changed the messages script to look for messages in all folders under '/src/main/webapp' and create one messages.js file with all these message files combined. Let me know if it's okay and what should be done next in this ticket.

Sure thing, fixed in latest commit.

Sure thing, fixed in latest commit.

OLMIS-1725: Shortened condition statement for requisition deletion

OLMIS-1725: Delete button missing from 'submitted' state
OLMIS-1725: Delete button missing from 'submitted' state
Nikodem Graczewski added button in requisition-view.controller in one of his commits, I fixed the logic in service and updated tests.

Nikodem Graczewski added button in requisition-view.controller in one of his commits, I fixed the logic in service and updated tests.

OLMIS-1725: Added proper delete behaviour for submitted requisition, updated tests

Hi everyone, I made some changes according to comments left by you. In a nutshell, I added new users, changed diagram a little bit and finished README. Feel free to look at the changes and tell me ...

Hi everyone, I made some changes according to comments left by you. In a nutshell, I added new users, changed diagram a little bit and finished README. Feel free to look at the changes and tell me if they seem to be okay now.

Mary Jo Yes, they are automatically added, I just needed to specify facility type to make it work by itself.

Mary Jo Yes, they are automatically added, I just needed to specify facility type to make it work by itself.

For now, since we don't have second District Hospital, I need to leave HC01 here, because as far as I know, a facility cannot be in more than one requisition group of the same program so I cannot e...

For now, since we don't have second District Hospital, I need to leave HC01 here, because as far as I know, a facility cannot be in more than one requisition group of the same program so I cannot extend RGFP1 to have DH01. So, for now, we can treat HC01 as something bigger, and possibly change it later or add new facilities. Without 3 groups we have now, the approval structure would probably not work properly (it would be hard to make sub-points).

That's a good point, I thought about it, but I wasn't sure if we want to use admin account where we lack other accounts or not. After the summary everything seems to be clear, so I'll apply these i...

That's a good point, I thought about it, but I wasn't sure if we want to use admin account where we lack other accounts or not. After the summary everything seems to be clear, so I'll apply these ideas on the tomorrow's morning.

I believe they automatically add to new facilities since they are facility type dependent, not facility by itself. I'll make additional check for it, just to make sure that everything is correct.

I believe they automatically add to new facilities since they are facility type dependent, not facility by itself. I'll make additional check for it, just to make sure that everything is correct.

Mary Jo I added new diagram - blue dotted lines are used to connect supervisory nodes with their facilities, green ones to connect facilities & supervisory nodes with users. I also changed program ...

Mary Jo I added new diagram - blue dotted lines are used to connect supervisory nodes with their facilities, green ones to connect facilities & supervisory nodes with users. I also changed program lines and assigned users to other facilities to better show how it can actually look like in the real case. I didn't change demo-data yet (I made it partially, locally), let me know if the diagram is okay and if it is, I'll apply these changes. If it comes to two-step approval, I think that in the current form with SN1.1 and SN1 it should work properly.

Mary Jo & brandon you are totally right about SN3, it looks strange cause it shouldn't be there, my mistake. I removed it, adjusted the diagram with labels and correct lines to supervisory nodes. I...

Mary Jo & brandon you are totally right about SN3, it looks strange cause it shouldn't be there, my mistake. I removed it, adjusted the diagram with labels and correct lines to supervisory nodes. I also fixed problem mentioned above by Sebastian Brudziński, and problem with orders (see slack #help for more details). If it comes to README, I didn't forget about it, I'll update it tomorrow with all the stuff that brandon mentioned in comments.

We don't have to, but having them deleted and forcing us to use more 'real' demo-data results in less bugs later on (cause it's more clean what's going on).

We don't have to, but having them deleted and forcing us to use more 'real' demo-data results in less bugs later on (cause it's more clean what's going on).