9a32fadc2f
Merge branch 'dev' into 346-waiting-task-schedule
...
# Conflicts:
# Pipfile.lock
# crc/services/workflow_service.py
2021-06-30 10:14:37 -04:00
187221537b
fixing a corner case around file_data attributes.
2021-06-25 16:18:28 -04:00
628a587d97
We weren't committing to the database in the correct spot, so the delete wasn't sticking, and we were ending up with test workflows showing up in the main interface.
2021-06-23 16:39:58 -04:00
1f3febe2df
Fix the panda warnings, which means we only support xlsx files now.
...
Include the document details when reutnring a file from the file model.
Improve the validation of file form elements.
2021-06-22 14:58:52 -04:00
07eb3f9ca8
Moving metrics into SpiffWorkflow so we can run the performance metrics deeply across both systems simultaniously.
...
Upgrading libraries.
Fixing deprication issue with Pandas and numpy.
We can only process xlsx files now, plain oldschool xls is fully removed.
2021-06-18 16:41:55 -04:00
a4caae8d64
when validating, we need to take every step to remove the workflows we create during the validation.
2021-06-16 14:40:20 -04:00
acae6030f5
The API for evaluating python expressions should not raise an error, it can simply return a result of false, and provide an error to explain the problem. In this way the front end doesn't error out when it's running the script tasks but doesn't have enough information to get a valid response back.
...
The validation should take into account that repeating sections must be evaluated in the context of the data within the repeating section, not outside of it.
2021-06-15 16:17:15 -04:00
738a984dcd
Merge branch 'dev' of github.com:sartography/cr-connect-workflow into dev
2021-06-11 17:21:47 -04:00
879d6e1df3
missed a critical change on the backend with the recent file updates, this assures that we properly handle repeating sections during the post process,
...
and we update the file doc code in those repeating sections.
2021-06-11 17:20:25 -04:00
7282419174
modified the tools api to return the expression and data with the result, making it easier to cash results on the front end, This should help drastically reduce the calls to the python_eval from the front end.
...
The post processors for form submissions needs to take repeating sections into account, or it won't find the files it is looking for.
2021-06-11 08:27:50 -04:00
5f722d675f
Add a function that gets runs via a background scheduler to look for any workflows that are in a 'waiting' state - it runs the update waiting tasks and does do_engine_steps
...
We have a test for the function that runs, but an assumption was made that the scheduler module has its own unit tests and we do not need to test that.
fixes #346
2021-06-09 10:42:34 -04:00
0d8d251e8e
Temp save to test dev
2021-06-09 09:24:37 -04:00
586a0f2f1a
Merge pull request #325 from sartography/feature/file_refactor
...
Prefer tasks that share a parent over just the the next available tas…
2021-06-08 11:28:23 -04:00
8d79fe9d94
Fixing failing tests, and now asserting that we only perform the post_process_form if we actually have a form.
2021-06-08 11:16:10 -04:00
59f605c3df
Prefer tasks that share a parent over just the the next available task when returning the next_task in the workflow processor.
2021-06-08 08:03:14 -04:00
c41657301a
Modify `test_spec` and `make_test_workflow` to accept new optional `validate_study_id` parameter.
...
Modify `make_test_workflow` to use study_id when creating test workflow for validation.
2021-06-03 14:22:26 -04:00
ade7812540
Merge pull request #310 from sartography/get-primary-workflow-301
...
Get primary workflow #301
2021-05-14 12:41:48 -04:00
8a6bef5af4
New service to get the `primary workflow` for a workflow_spec, using a workflow_spec_id.
...
This is necessary because `primary` is a file parameter, not a workflow_spec parameter.
- you can ask a workflow file whether it is primary, but
- you cannot ask a workflow_spec for its primary workflow file
Now, you can use `workflow_service.get_primary_workflow(workflow_spec_id)`
2021-05-12 13:51:51 -04:00
07f3d2c2ee
Allow data from read-only fields to persist in task_data
2021-05-07 14:06:53 -04:00
8b0afa4437
Merge pull request #304 from sartography/irb-info-script-307
...
Irb info script #307
2021-05-04 11:40:52 -04:00
d6054a9846
Merge branch 'dev' into 310-task-event-timezone
2021-05-04 11:21:36 -04:00
804926dbac
Fixed problem where WorkflowService.make_test_workflow did not add a study to the workflow_model
2021-05-01 15:55:20 -04:00
24c818bf31
Added study_id to workflow_api
2021-04-29 14:29:21 -04:00
2b9cee6b89
Update database to include timezone and change all points where we set the time on an event to be utc time. If we get something in the database with a timezone, it will display properly on the front end, but by default everything will be put in the database in UTC
2021-04-29 10:25:28 -04:00
f17a9dc0f4
Modified `get_users_assigned_to_task`.
...
If we are running a standalone workflow, only return the current user.
2021-04-26 08:45:08 -04:00
b6f5001687
Added methods for the 2 new api endpoints
2021-04-26 08:43:14 -04:00
6427a54d74
Set the correct default value on enumerations - if it is a multi-select enum (checkbox is set) then it should return a default value of an empty array, and not a dictionary.
2021-04-09 08:40:58 -04:00
116bf5e7aa
Merge branch 'dev' into 263-optimize-dashboard
...
# Conflicts:
# crc/services/study_service.py
2021-03-31 10:20:33 -04:00
60f5be1aef
Check in - pending change from @cullerton
2021-03-30 12:10:49 -04:00
938079cf59
Lowered count ceiling to 100, from 1000. This significantly increased validation time, from about 3 minutes to about 10 seconds.
...
Changed ApiError call to from_task, instead of from_workflow_exception.
2021-03-17 14:52:19 -04:00
529bfc34b3
We now check for an infinite loop during validation.
...
This happened when testing for a Department Chair in a workflow.
Our mocked data for study_info script did not have a Department Chair
2021-03-16 13:35:51 -04:00
6f80d816cd
My privous efforts didn't take into account the fact that we use dot notation in field names.
...
I've re-worked the workflow form endpoint, so that it only accepts the data that should be in the form, and ignores any other values that come back from the front end. It seems Formly has some bugs that were introducing confusing information, and I want everything to behave consistently.
I had to re-work some of the tests, which were relying on an ability to set data through a form post without having a corresponding form to do so.
2021-03-14 12:20:39 -04:00
15c64c862e
Adding an argument to update task that will allow it to complete all remaining tasks through an "update_all" flag,
...
this will allow us to remove some fairly complex logic from the front end that isn't behaving properly.
2021-03-12 20:41:07 -05:00
1000b22a3b
Don't raise errors on non-ready tasks that calculate a title, the information may not be avaiable yet.
...
Also Allow autocomplete-num as a valid field property.
2021-03-12 15:40:23 -05:00
576aebab19
Sometimes a workflow can be completely broken and unloadable. For instance, it starts off with a engine step / script task that will not execute. So the failure happens the second it is processed. When calling reset on a workflow, we should catch the failure, and reset the workflow, so we aren't trapped in an unrecoverable state.
...
To do so, I changed the WorkflowProcessor's reset method to be static, it will try to instantiate the current workflow and execute a cancel_notify event, but if that fails, it will continue and always return a new workflow processor using the latest spec.
2021-03-09 11:52:55 -05:00
36dcc58705
Merge branch 'dev' of github.com:sartography/cr-connect-workflow into dev
2021-03-08 14:00:14 -05:00
291216e081
Fixing a bug that prevented proper evaluation of a enum field where the default value was null or empty.
2021-03-08 14:00:03 -05:00
f883eb2bbe
We now include field.id in the ApiError message for hidden and default validation. (The field must have a default value or value expression)
...
While working on this ticket I found a logic error in the test. I expected both default_value and value_expression. It turns out the default_value is always there, it's just null if we don't set it.
Modified the existing test for hidden and required, and added tests to make sure my passing logic is now correct.
2021-03-04 10:42:13 -05:00
0b08a95e25
Add test and make sure that the API endpoint does the right thing when we switch users - checks both associated with access and associated with no access
2021-02-25 12:20:43 -05:00
f3414e22c1
use the associated table to grant access to users who have been designated to have access to the study, not just the study owner.
2021-02-25 11:08:06 -05:00
349c3d657a
Merge branch 'dev' into 201-changes-to-in-progress
2021-02-22 18:17:59 -05:00
f0a921d46d
Merge pull request #242 from sartography/allow-period-in-field-id-199
...
Allow period in field id 199
2021-02-17 15:08:53 -05:00
93f29e86d8
Merge branch 'dev' into STG-181_frontend-ux-model-changes
2021-02-17 07:49:05 -05:00
ff8a44a7b1
Make sure we always have a current user, even if the very first task is a script task.
2021-02-16 12:42:59 -05:00
118cf62172
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/dev' into STG-181_frontend-ux-model-changes
2021-02-16 10:07:34 -05:00
ed6218028c
We now allow periods in field ids.
...
Also, added task_id and task_name to the ApiError for missing default value on hidden and required fields
2021-02-15 16:27:56 -05:00
35773ebc29
Merge pull request #240 from sartography/weird-email-error
...
The email script was failing validation because of missing parameters…
2021-02-12 09:31:52 -05:00
d8bd203139
The email script was failing validation because of missing parameters in scripts.email.do_task_validate_only.
...
I added a test in tests.test_email_script to make sure we get the default email_address.
I also found and fixed a bug in workflow_service.populate_form_with_random_data where we would overwrite default_values with random text because of a missing continue.
(We don't want to continue if we have repeating fields though.)
2021-02-11 15:36:12 -05:00
fe4e737596
Merge pull request #238 from sartography/value-expression-failing-shield-test-194
...
We now allow value_expression to evaluate to an empty string ("") so …
2021-02-11 11:25:09 -05:00
df25b83958
Merge pull request #235 from sartography/index-error-for-enums-186
...
Index error for enums 186
2021-02-11 11:21:50 -05:00
Dan
Kelly McDonald
mike cullerton