Modifed the request_approval to take a list of arguments, which works better for us... today.
UpdateStudy correctly handles validation.
WorkflowService correctly populates random values from lookup tables.
And several fixes down in Spiffworkflow, including a big bug where only the last item in a decision table made it through.
Fixing a bug where the validation of forms did not correctly process auto-complete fields.
Fixing a bug where the approvals script and the update study script could not process dot notation correctly.
Moved populate_random_data into the WorkflowService where it makes more sense.
Using the LDAP service for checking user details in development mode - even if you are using the back door.
Added a new Flask fucntion load-example-rrt-data that loads the rrt workflow, and not the CRC wrokflows.
Modified the "load-example-data" in the tests to use some test data, rather than loading up all the workflows[
in CRC each time, with a parameter to load crc data if that is required - which is enabled for just a handful of tests.
(Tests run in 1/4 the time now)
Added the following columns:
* date_created - so we know when the file was created
* renamed workflow_version to just "version", because everything has a version, this is the version of the request.
* workflow_hash - this is just a quick way to see what files and versions are associated with the request, it could be factored out.
* study - a quick relationship link to the study, so that this model is easier to use.
* workflow - ditto
* approval_files - these is a list from a new link table that links an approval to specific files and versions.
The RequestApproval is logically sound, but still needs some additional pieces in place to be callable from a BPMN workflow diagram.
Altered the file service to pick up on changes to files vs adding new files, so that versions are picked up correctly as
users modify their submission - adding new files or replacing existing ones. Deleting files worries me, and I will need to revisit this.
The damn base test keeps giving me a headache, so I made changes there to see if clearing and dropping the database each time won't allow the tests to pass more consistently.
Lots more tests around the file service to make sure it is versioning user uploaded files correctly.
The "Test Request Approval Script" tries to find to assure the correct behavior as this is likely to be called many times repeatedly and with little knowledge of the internal system. So it should just "do the right thing".
PB_ENABLED can be set to false in the configuration (either in a file called instance/config.py, or as an environment variable)
Added a check in the base_test, to assure that we are always running tests with the test configuration, and bail out otherwise. Setting TESTING=true as an environment variable will get this, but so well the correct ordering of imports. Just be dead certain the first file every test file imports is base_test.py.
Aaron was right, and we call the Protocol Builder in all kinds of awful places. But we don't do this now. So Carlos, you should have the ability to reuse a lot of the logic in the study_service now.
I dropped the poorly named "study-update" endpoint completely. We weren't using it. POST and PUT to Study still work just fine for doing exactly that.
All the tests now run and pass with the Protocol builder disabled. Tests that specifically check PB behavior turn it back on for the test, or mock it out.
updaing the user 'sso' endpoint to provide additional information for debugging.
Pulling information from ldap to stay super consistent on where we get our information.
Refactored calls into a new lookup_service to keep things tidy.
New keys for all enum/auto-complete fields:
PROP_OPTIONS_FILE = "spreadsheet.name"
PROP_OPTIONS_VALUE_COLUMN = "spreadsheet.value.column"
PROP_OPTIONS_LABEL_COL = "spreadsheet.label.column"
PROP_LDAP_LOOKUP = "ldap.lookup"
FIELD_TYPE_AUTO_COMPLETE = "autocomplete"
No Previous Task, No Last Task, No Task List. Just the current task, and the Navigation.
Use the token endpoint to set the current task, even if it is a "READY" task in the api.
Previous Task can be set by identifying the prior task in the Navigation (I'm hoping)
Prefering camel case to snake case on all new apis. Maybe clean the rest up later.
running all extension/properties through the Jinja template processor so you can have custom display names using data, very helpful for building multi-instance displays.
Properties was returned as an array of key/value pairs, which is just mean. Switched this to a dictionary.
Improving the study_info script documentation to provide detailed examples of values returned based on arguments.
Making the tests a little more targetted and less subject to breaking through better mocks.
Allow all tests to pass even when ther protocol builder mock isn't running locally.
Removing the duplication of reference files in tests and static, as this seems silly to me at the moment.
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.
Because this changes the endpoint for all existing document details, I've modified all the test and static bpmn files to use the new format.
Shorting up the SponsorsList.xls file makes for slightly faster tests. seems senseless to load 5000 everytime we reset the data.
Tried to test all of this carefully in the test_study_details_documents.py test.
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.
Because the name field is now used to expose workflow/sub-process information on tasks, we can't use it to store the workflow_version, so that is now just stored on the database model. Which is much cleaner and removes a duplication.
Dan Funk
Carlos Lopez
Aaron Louie