Module version confimation

Hi all,

I wish to confirm the way forward with your modules on this link. Kindly confirm if we are expecting some changes or not. I also wish to bring to your attention the modules @raff was to work on i need someone to help report on them.

CC @burke ,@wyclif ,@darius, @dkayiwa, @alexis.duque, @mvorobey, @mseaton ,@k.joseph , ,@mogoodrich,@surangak,@Justin, @teleivo,@bwolfe ,@tmdugan ,@nyoman, @sunbiz,@Rowan seymour

You can use SysAdmin OWA version 1.1 instead of 1.0.1. It’s already released into Bintray.

CC : @dkayiwa

1 Like

Thanks for the feedback @suthagar23 and @mseaton. Am still waiting for your feedback members we don’t have time anymore.

I’m having trouble interpreting the status of things at

I would expect that a green check in the Bintray/Artifactory column means that the module/owa has been released to Bintray. And a green check in the add-Ons column means we have verified it’s indexed in the add-on index. But right now everything has green checks.

Assuming that you’re asking for feedback on everything whose Ready column is blank, here’s my feedback:

  • Atlas => use the version listed there
  • Chart Search => use the version listed there
  • Data Exchange => use the version listed there
  • Event => use the version listed there
  • FHIR => unreleased change in Feb, probably needs a new release. I don’t think Suranga is the module owner anymore though, you/we need to assign this to someone else
  • Form Entry App => use the version listed there
  • Legacy UI => unreleased change in Feb, probably needs a new release
  • Logic => should not be included, please remove this from the table and ensure it’s not in the refapp
  • OWA => unreleased change in Feb, probably needs a new release
  • Reference Demo Data, Reference Metadata => needs a release with every Refapp release
  • UI Library => use the version listed there
  • UI Test Framework => not included in the refapp, so I don’t know why it’s listed here. (That version is the latest though.)
  • => There are lots of recent unreleased changes, but they also refer to unreleased snapshot code in openmrs-core. There’s also one bugfix. I would recommend doing a release at this commit.

PS- What I do is I look in github to see if there are any commits since the last release (e.g. If the last two commits are like:

[maven-release-plugin] prepare for next development iteration
[maven-release-plugin] prepare release 2.22.0

…and that version number matches what’s in the version column on the wiki page, then there are no unreleased changes.

@jwnasambu Thank you for the enthusiasm and energy you are brining to the process

@darius Thank you for the pointers - I am thinking that the PS should actually be a step to help determine which module owners to push

@dkayiwa this comment is on the reportingRest module "This looks like it needs a new release to support OpenMRS 2.2. " on this link. Have you seen it? what is your view?

@jwnasambu the reportingrest module is already released according to this:

1 Like

Correct @dkayiwa / @jwnasambu - we ran the 1.10.0 release last week. We can use this latest version.

1 Like

Thanks for the feedback.

@darius i suppose you have looked at my tracking issue on this link and compare it with the modules in the pom. What is your advice concerning namephonetics module?

cc @burke

My understanding is that the namephonetics module is not supposed to be included in the Reference Application, it’s just supposed to be “tested for compatibility”.

Friends i have compared the modules on the pom and those on the tracking issues and before i make changes most especially snapshot i wish to confirm if we expect new releases or i go with what I haven on the tracking issue.

cc @mogoodrich,@surangak,@Justin, @teleivo,@bwolfe ,@tmdugan ,@nyoman, @sunbiz,@Rowan seymour, @burke , @wyclif ,@darius, @dkayiwa, @alexis.duque, @mvorobey, @mseaton ,@k.joseph ,