Compliance of Analyses from Samples with Specification #1506
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Analyses from the sample will use the results ranges set initially, so if the Specification object is change afterwards, this will not have any impact to previously created samples and tests
create_analysisrequest has been refactored so the analyses are not passed in through values['Analyses'] anymore, rather they are set manually afterwards. This prevents a lot of inconsistencies and makes the creation cleaner. As a result, the first version of a Sample won't never contain analyses.
xispa
changed the title
ramonski
reviewed
Jan 30, 2020
Comment on lines
+57
to
+71
| def set(self, instance, value, **kwargs): | ||
| from bika.lims.content.analysisspec import ResultsRangeDict | ||
| if isinstance(value, ResultsRangeDict): | ||
| # Better store a built-in dict so it will always be available even | ||
| # if ResultsRangeDict is removed or changed | ||
| value = dict(value) | ||
|
|
||
| super(ResultRangeField, self).set(instance, value, **kwargs) | ||
|
|
||
| def get(self, instance, **kwargs): | ||
| from bika.lims.content.analysisspec import ResultsRangeDict | ||
| value = super(ResultRangeField, self).get(instance, **kwargs) | ||
| if value: | ||
| return ResultsRangeDict(dict(value.items())) | ||
| return {} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why the internal imports?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I got a circular dependency, but now you ask, I think I can get rid of it
Traceback (innermost last): Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 138, in publish Module ZPublisher.mapply, line 77, in mapply Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 48, in call_object Module bika.lims.browser.analysisrequest.add2, line 66, in decorator Module bika.lims.browser.analysisrequest.add2, line 734, in __call__ Module bika.lims.browser.analysisrequest.add2, line 1673, in ajax_submit TypeError: create_analysisrequest() got an unexpected keyword argument 'specifications'
This reverts commit 91467bc.
This change displays an icon in the header table next to the fields that have the `primary_bound` set to `True`.
The aim is to preserve the result ranges manually set to analyses and to the Sample itself when the Save button is pressed in the Sample view while the user has not changed the value for Specification
ramonski
approved these changes
Jan 31, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses
Before this Pull Request, the results ranges from the Specification set in the Sample were stored in
ResultsRangesfield from Sample, rather than individually to Analyses. The manual addition of analyses by using "Manage analyses" view was storing the "custom" values directly to Sample'sResultsRangefield making them available to analyses added and those that were already there. As a result, some shortcomings have been detected:User can manually change results ranges manually for analyses (via "Manage Analyses" view inside Sample), but Specification won't change. Thus, this drives to an inconsistency: analyses might not longer be compliant with the Specification set at Sample level, but user is not warned about this. This Pull Request looks for compliance and if the results ranges set manually are not compliant with the Specification, a viewlet is displayed and an informative icon is displayed next to the analysis' specification column.
If an Specification object is edited (e.g. modification of a results range for a given service), this change is not propagated to Samples with that Specification assigned. This Pull Request displays a notification panel to the user when such case happens. If user re-assign the Specification, the results ranges for analyses will be reseted to latest version.
When a results range for a given analysis is changed by means of "Manage analyses" view inside Sample and the analysis belongs to a partition, the result range of the analysis does not change. This Pull Request makes results ranges to be stored at analysis level. Therefore, the changes will be applied to analyses from partitions too.
Additions
Specification non-compliant viewlet: displayed when the Sample contains analyses that are not compliant with the Specification initially set.
Sample results ranges out-of-date: displayed when results ranges from Specification initially set is are different from current Specification version (Specification history-aware kind of thing).
Warning icon next to specification column in analyses listing that is displayed when analysis' results range has been manually changed and does not match with the Sample's.
Other issues addressed
setfromARAnalysisFielddoes no longer return valuesAdded doctests
Testing guidelines
Screenshots:
--
I confirm I have tested this PR thoroughly and coded it according to PEP8
and Plone's Python styleguide standards.