sartography
/
cr-connect-workflow
mirror of https://github.com/sartography/cr-connect-workflow.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
cr-connect-workflow/tests/test_approvals_service.py

60 lines
3.1 KiB
Python
Raw Normal View History

As we now have an approval_service.py, I moved all the business logic into this service and out of the request_approval.py script. And moved all tests for these features into a test file for the service. Will make it easier to cross reference what is happening, as everything all happens in one file. As many of the scripts need to know the workflow, and it's down in a weird parameter, moved this so it is passed in each time.
2020-05-24 20:13:15 +00:00
from tests.base_test import BaseTest
from crc import db
from crc.models.approval import ApprovalModel
from crc.services.approval_service import ApprovalService
from crc.services.file_service import FileService
from crc.services.workflow_processor import WorkflowProcessor
class TestApprovalsService(BaseTest):
def test_create_approval_record(self):
Ludicrously stupid launch in a refactor of the way all files work in the system at a time where I crave sleep and peace above all other things. Added a File class, that we wrap around the FileModel so the api endpoints don't change, but File no longer holds refences to versions or dates of the file_data model, we figure this out based on a clean database structure. The ApprovalFile is directly related to the file_data_model - so no chance that a reviewer would review the incorrect version of a file.py Noticed that our FileType enum called "bpmn" "bpmm", hope this doesn't screw someone up. Workflows are directly related to the data_models that create the workflow spec it needs. So the files should always be there. There are no more hashes, and thus no more hash errors where it can't find the files to rebuild the workflow.py Not much to report here, other than I broke every single test in the system at one point. So I'm super concerned about this, and will be testing it a lot before creating the pull request.
2020-05-29 00:03:50 +00:00
self.create_reference_document()
As we now have an approval_service.py, I moved all the business logic into this service and out of the request_approval.py script. And moved all tests for these features into a test file for the service. Will make it easier to cross reference what is happening, as everything all happens in one file. As many of the scripts need to know the workflow, and it's down in a weird parameter, moved this so it is passed in each time.
2020-05-24 20:13:15 +00:00
workflow = self.create_workflow("empty_workflow")
Ludicrously stupid launch in a refactor of the way all files work in the system at a time where I crave sleep and peace above all other things. Added a File class, that we wrap around the FileModel so the api endpoints don't change, but File no longer holds refences to versions or dates of the file_data model, we figure this out based on a clean database structure. The ApprovalFile is directly related to the file_data_model - so no chance that a reviewer would review the incorrect version of a file.py Noticed that our FileType enum called "bpmn" "bpmm", hope this doesn't screw someone up. Workflows are directly related to the data_models that create the workflow spec it needs. So the files should always be there. There are no more hashes, and thus no more hash errors where it can't find the files to rebuild the workflow.py Not much to report here, other than I broke every single test in the system at one point. So I'm super concerned about this, and will be testing it a lot before creating the pull request.
2020-05-29 00:03:50 +00:00
FileService.add_workflow_file(workflow_id=workflow.id,
name="anything.png", content_type="text",
binary_data=b'5678', irb_doc_code="UVACompl_PRCAppr" )
As we now have an approval_service.py, I moved all the business logic into this service and out of the request_approval.py script. And moved all tests for these features into a test file for the service. Will make it easier to cross reference what is happening, as everything all happens in one file. As many of the scripts need to know the workflow, and it's down in a weird parameter, moved this so it is passed in each time.
2020-05-24 20:13:15 +00:00
ApprovalService.add_approval(study_id=workflow.study_id, workflow_id=workflow.id, approver_uid="dhf8r")
self.assertEquals(1, db.session.query(ApprovalModel).count())
model = db.session.query(ApprovalModel).first()
self.assertEquals(workflow.study_id, model.study_id)
self.assertEquals(workflow.id, model.workflow_id)
self.assertEquals("dhf8r", model.approver_uid)
self.assertEquals(1, model.version)
def test_new_requests_dont_add_if_approval_exists_for_current_workflow(self):
Ludicrously stupid launch in a refactor of the way all files work in the system at a time where I crave sleep and peace above all other things. Added a File class, that we wrap around the FileModel so the api endpoints don't change, but File no longer holds refences to versions or dates of the file_data model, we figure this out based on a clean database structure. The ApprovalFile is directly related to the file_data_model - so no chance that a reviewer would review the incorrect version of a file.py Noticed that our FileType enum called "bpmn" "bpmm", hope this doesn't screw someone up. Workflows are directly related to the data_models that create the workflow spec it needs. So the files should always be there. There are no more hashes, and thus no more hash errors where it can't find the files to rebuild the workflow.py Not much to report here, other than I broke every single test in the system at one point. So I'm super concerned about this, and will be testing it a lot before creating the pull request.
2020-05-29 00:03:50 +00:00
self.create_reference_document()
As we now have an approval_service.py, I moved all the business logic into this service and out of the request_approval.py script. And moved all tests for these features into a test file for the service. Will make it easier to cross reference what is happening, as everything all happens in one file. As many of the scripts need to know the workflow, and it's down in a weird parameter, moved this so it is passed in each time.
2020-05-24 20:13:15 +00:00
workflow = self.create_workflow("empty_workflow")
Ludicrously stupid launch in a refactor of the way all files work in the system at a time where I crave sleep and peace above all other things. Added a File class, that we wrap around the FileModel so the api endpoints don't change, but File no longer holds refences to versions or dates of the file_data model, we figure this out based on a clean database structure. The ApprovalFile is directly related to the file_data_model - so no chance that a reviewer would review the incorrect version of a file.py Noticed that our FileType enum called "bpmn" "bpmm", hope this doesn't screw someone up. Workflows are directly related to the data_models that create the workflow spec it needs. So the files should always be there. There are no more hashes, and thus no more hash errors where it can't find the files to rebuild the workflow.py Not much to report here, other than I broke every single test in the system at one point. So I'm super concerned about this, and will be testing it a lot before creating the pull request.
2020-05-29 00:03:50 +00:00
FileService.add_workflow_file(workflow_id=workflow.id,
name="anything.png", content_type="text",
binary_data=b'5678', irb_doc_code="UVACompl_PRCAppr" )
As we now have an approval_service.py, I moved all the business logic into this service and out of the request_approval.py script. And moved all tests for these features into a test file for the service. Will make it easier to cross reference what is happening, as everything all happens in one file. As many of the scripts need to know the workflow, and it's down in a weird parameter, moved this so it is passed in each time.
2020-05-24 20:13:15 +00:00
ApprovalService.add_approval(study_id=workflow.study_id, workflow_id=workflow.id, approver_uid="dhf8r")
ApprovalService.add_approval(study_id=workflow.study_id, workflow_id=workflow.id, approver_uid="dhf8r")
self.assertEquals(1, db.session.query(ApprovalModel).count())
model = db.session.query(ApprovalModel).first()
self.assertEquals(1, model.version)
def test_new_approval_requests_after_file_modification_create_new_requests(self):
self.load_example_data()
self.create_reference_document()
workflow = self.create_workflow('empty_workflow')
Ludicrously stupid launch in a refactor of the way all files work in the system at a time where I crave sleep and peace above all other things. Added a File class, that we wrap around the FileModel so the api endpoints don't change, but File no longer holds refences to versions or dates of the file_data model, we figure this out based on a clean database structure. The ApprovalFile is directly related to the file_data_model - so no chance that a reviewer would review the incorrect version of a file.py Noticed that our FileType enum called "bpmn" "bpmm", hope this doesn't screw someone up. Workflows are directly related to the data_models that create the workflow spec it needs. So the files should always be there. There are no more hashes, and thus no more hash errors where it can't find the files to rebuild the workflow.py Not much to report here, other than I broke every single test in the system at one point. So I'm super concerned about this, and will be testing it a lot before creating the pull request.
2020-05-29 00:03:50 +00:00
FileService.add_workflow_file(workflow_id=workflow.id,
name="anything.png", content_type="text",
binary_data=b'5678', irb_doc_code="AD_CoCAppr")
As we now have an approval_service.py, I moved all the business logic into this service and out of the request_approval.py script. And moved all tests for these features into a test file for the service. Will make it easier to cross reference what is happening, as everything all happens in one file. As many of the scripts need to know the workflow, and it's down in a weird parameter, moved this so it is passed in each time.
2020-05-24 20:13:15 +00:00
ApprovalService.add_approval(study_id=workflow.study_id, workflow_id=workflow.id, approver_uid="dhf8r")
A major refactor of how we search and store files, as there was a lot of confusing bits in here. From an API point of view you can do the following (and only the following) /files?workflow_spec_id=x * You can find all files associated with a workflow_spec_id, and add a file with a workflow_spec_id /files?workflow_id=x * You can find all files associated with a workflow_id, and add a file that is directly associated with the workflow /files?workflow_id=x&form_field_key=y * You can find all files associated with a form element on a running workflow, and add a new file. Note: you can add multiple files to the same form_field_key, IF they have different file names. If the same name, the original file is archived, and the new file takes its place. The study endpoints always return a list of the file metadata associated with the study. Removed /studies-files, but there is an endpoint called /studies/all - that returns all the studies in the system, and does include their files. On a deeper level: The File model no longer contains: - study_id, - task_id, - form_field_key Instead, if the file is associated with workflow - then that is the one way it is connected to the study, and we use this relationship to find files for a study. A file is never associated with a task_id, as these change when the workflow is reloaded. The form_field_key must match the irb_doc_code, so when requesting files for a form field, we just look up the irb_doc_code.
2020-05-28 12:27:26 +00:00
FileService.add_workflow_file(workflow_id=workflow.id,
name="anything.png", content_type="text",
Ludicrously stupid launch in a refactor of the way all files work in the system at a time where I crave sleep and peace above all other things. Added a File class, that we wrap around the FileModel so the api endpoints don't change, but File no longer holds refences to versions or dates of the file_data model, we figure this out based on a clean database structure. The ApprovalFile is directly related to the file_data_model - so no chance that a reviewer would review the incorrect version of a file.py Noticed that our FileType enum called "bpmn" "bpmm", hope this doesn't screw someone up. Workflows are directly related to the data_models that create the workflow spec it needs. So the files should always be there. There are no more hashes, and thus no more hash errors where it can't find the files to rebuild the workflow.py Not much to report here, other than I broke every single test in the system at one point. So I'm super concerned about this, and will be testing it a lot before creating the pull request.
2020-05-29 00:03:50 +00:00
binary_data=b'5678', irb_doc_code="UVACompl_PRCAppr")
As we now have an approval_service.py, I moved all the business logic into this service and out of the request_approval.py script. And moved all tests for these features into a test file for the service. Will make it easier to cross reference what is happening, as everything all happens in one file. As many of the scripts need to know the workflow, and it's down in a weird parameter, moved this so it is passed in each time.
2020-05-24 20:13:15 +00:00
ApprovalService.add_approval(study_id=workflow.study_id, workflow_id=workflow.id, approver_uid="dhf8r")
self.assertEquals(2, db.session.query(ApprovalModel).count())
models = db.session.query(ApprovalModel).order_by(ApprovalModel.version).all()
self.assertEquals(1, models[0].version)
self.assertEquals(2, models[1].version)