[BACK-4187] Clinic and invites changes to support sending account setup invites#185
[BACK-4187] Clinic and invites changes to support sending account setup invites#185toddkazakov wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
| @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ | |||
| type: object | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is the purpose of this data structure?
I see that we're capturing an EHR provider integration, but I don't understand why that's worth capturing? Granted I'll probably learn that when I read the other related PRs, maybe there should be something here to explain its purpose?
A description field on this might be useful in that way. To indicate what is relevant metadata that might be stored here for example, and maybe more importantly to indicate what wouldn't be appropriate to store here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We need to trigger conditional logic based on this and it was requested for reporting pusposes
| $ref: ./creator.v1.yaml | ||
| context: | ||
| type: string | ||
| type: object |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a welcome change, and an ambitious one too! The context is used in a lot of places, and we should ensure that QA takes a look at some of those other places to ensure that this change hasn't broken one of the other invitation workflows that use context information.
Come to think of it, would this require a matching frontend change?
I can't remember for sure, but I have a memory of the frontend passing context along in some places, though perhaps they were just passing it as a blob, without knowing more about it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The context is an object, not a string - the spec was incorrect
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The context is an object, not a string
Yes, but it's stored as a string in MongoDB, and that's what I was hoping you were fixing. :) Oh well.
| type: object | ||
| title: PatientCreationMetadata | ||
| properties: | ||
| integration: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider if "source" wouldn't be a more descriptive name for this.
Much less importantly, I think a name like source would make it easier to add other non-EHR integration patient creation sources in the future. Possibly a batch import process, or a clinician action. But admittedly that's all a concern for tomorrow.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did consider source - we're not going to be capturing the source in Tidepool Web or Uploader, so I decided to go with integration so I don't get asked why we don't have it for other sources.
2 participants
No description provided.