Cannot verify calculated analyses if retracted dependencies #439
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
ramonski
requested changes
Dec 1, 2017
| if analysis.getRequestUID() != requestuid: | ||
| continue | ||
|
|
||
| if retracted == False and in_state(analysis, retracted_states): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
better use if retracted is False and in_state(analysis, retracted_states) (compare bool with is)
bika/lims/content/analysis.py
Outdated
| for sibling in ans: | ||
| if sibling.UID() == self.UID(): | ||
| continue | ||
| if retracted == False and in_state(sibling, retracted_states): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
better use if retracted is False and in_state(sibling, retracted_states) (compare bool with is)
| if not states: | ||
| return False | ||
| obj_state = getCurrentState(obj, stateflowid=stateflowid) | ||
| return obj_state in states |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please note that getCurrentState returns an empty string as default (return wf.getInfoFor(obj, stateflowid, ''))
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good catch. I take note, this change requires a new PR imo, because has nothing to do with in_state rather with getCurrentState.
Conflicts: CHANGES.rst
…/bika.lims into verify-calculated-analyses
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
To determine if a given analysis can be transitioned from
to_be_verifiedtoverifiedstate, the system checks if this analysis has dependencies (analyses the analysis depends on to calculate its result). If these dependencies, in turn can be transitioned fromto_be_verifiedtoverifiedor the transitionverifyfor these dependencies has already been performed, then the system returnsTrue, so the target analysis can be transitioned toverifiedstate. Otherwise, the system, returns False (the target analysis cannot be transitioned toverifiedstate.All these checks live in
bika.lims.workflow.analysis.eventsand specially inbika.lims.workflow.analysis.guards, cause the guard is always checked (as per DC workflow default behavior) when using DC's workflow tool to obtain the available transitions for a given state and obect.When returning the dependencies of a given analysis, the system was including analyses that were retracted (or rejected), and because from a retracted/rejected status there is no possibility to reach neither
to_be_verifiedorverifiedstate, the system was not allowing theverifytransition to analyses that had dependencies withretractedorrejectedstates.With this PR, the system returns the dependencies excluding retracted/rejected analyses by default. The same criteria has been applied to dependents (analyses that depends on the target analysis). Because both
getDependentsandgetDependenciesrely ongetSiblingsthe logic for this fix has been delegated togetSiblingsfunction. The code has been inspected carefully from a functional point of view if there was any place that retracted dependents/depencies were required.Current behavior before PR
The user cannot verify analyses with retracted dependencies
Desired behavior after PR is merged
The user can verify analyses with retracted dependencies
--
I confirm I have tested this PR thoroughly and coded it according to PEP8
and Plone's Python styleguide standards.