I noticed we were saving the workflow every time we loaded it up, rather than only when we were making changes to it. Refactored this to be a little more careful.
Centralized the saving of the workflow into one location in the processor, so we can make sure we update all the details about that workflow every time we save.
The workflow service has a method that will log any task action taken in a consistent way.
The stats models were removed from the API completely. Will wait for a use case for dealing with this later.
Added error checking such that attempting to submit data for a task that is not in the "READY" state throws an error message.
For some reason I'm getting lots of errors in the tests as they try to hit API endpoints they were not hitting before, so adding a number of mocks to some of the study service tests.
INCOMPLETE = 'Incomplete in Protocol Builder',
ACTIVE = 'Active / Ready to roll',
HOLD = 'On Hold',
OPEN = 'Open - this study is in progress',
ABANDONED = 'Abandoned, it got deleted in Protocol Builder'
Found a problem where the documentation for elements was being processed BEFORE data was loaded from a script. There still may be some issues here.
Ran into an issue with circular dependencies - handling it with a new workflow_service, and pulling computational logic out of the api_models - it was the right thing to do.
some ugly fixes in the file_service for improving panda output from spreadsheet processing that I need to revist.
now that the spiff-workflow handles multi-instance, we can't have random multi-instance tasks around.
Improved tests around study deletion.
Created a Study object (seperate from the StudyModel) that can cronstructed on request, and contains a different data structure than we store in the DB. This allows us to return underlying Categories and Workflows in a clean way.
Added a new status to workflows called "not_started", meaning we have not yet instantiated a processor or created a BPMN, they have no version yet and no stored data, just the possiblity of being started.
The Top Level Workflow or "Master" workflow is now a part of the sample data, and loaded at all times.
Removed the ability to "add a workflow to a study" and "remove a workflow from a study", a study contains all possible workflows by definition.
Example data no longer creates users or studies, it just creates the specs.
Fixing adding a study so all workflows are again added, will add status on those workflows based on output from the master bpmn diagram, which is coming shortly.
Added a validate_workflow_specification endpoint that allows you to check if the workflow will execute from beginning to end using random data.
Minor fixes to existing bpmns to allow them to pass.
All scripts must include a "do_task_validate_only" that restricts external calls and database modifications, but performs as much logic as possible.
The protocol builder service now returns real models, not dictionaries, forcing proper validation and fail-fast behavior.
Changed the name of the "status" spec, to "top_level_workflow" and removing any connection a workflow or study has with this specification. It is only unused to determine status in real time, and is not reused or tracked.
Modified the required documents script to return a dictionary and not an array, making it easier to speak to specific values in the BPMN and DMN.
Working on new ways to test the top_level_workflow in the context of updates, this is still a work in progress.
Making use of several modifications to the Spiff library that enables more complex expressions in DMN models. This is evident in the new DMN models for the top_level_workflow
Required Documents is becoming complicated, so making this it's own script task, removing it from study_info.py
The file_service is now very aware of this irb_documents file, so it will always need to exist. We seed this file
during setup, but it can be overwritten by the configurator.
Dan Funk
Aaron Louie