# OpenMRS Platform 2.3.0-beta released for testing **URL:** \ **Category:** Platform\ **Tags:** releases\ **Created:** [September 20, 2019, 1:47pm UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795 "2019-09-20T13:47:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![ruhanga](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/ruhanga/32/8318_2.png) [@ruhanga](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/ruhanga)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2019, 6:31am UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/61 "2019-11-21T06:31:57Z")
Thanks very much for this report @mogoodrich!! šŸ™‚ > [@mogoodrich](#): > > Looking deeper, the following test in core still passesā€¦ > > [github.com](https://github.com/openmrs/openmrs-core/blob/master/api/src/test/java/org/openmrs/api/PatientServiceTest.java#L1573) > > #### [openmrs/openmrs-core/blob/master/api/src/test/java/org/openmrs/api/PatientServiceTest.java#L1573](https://github.com/openmrs/openmrs-core/blob/master/api/src/test/java/org/openmrs/api/PatientServiceTest.java#L1573) This is likely because the data is already predetermined in the data set tested against. I guess overriding the associated setters/getters as well could help solve this. ---
**Author:** ![mogoodrich](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/mogoodrich/32/3324_2.png) [@mogoodrich](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/mogoodrich)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2019, 3:10pm UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/62 "2019-11-21T15:10:27Z")
Yes @ruhanga it feel weird and wrong to be added new private variables for things like voided when they are already on BaseOpenMRSDataā€¦ it looks like we did this just so we could do the mapping via Annotation instead of by mapping file? Would there be another way to go about this? ---
**Author:** ![mogoodrich](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/mogoodrich/32/3324_2.png) [@mogoodrich](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/mogoodrich)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2019, 5:26pm UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/63 "2019-11-21T17:26:03Z")
Iā€™ve been able to reproduce the issue in a unit test that can be run against OpenMRS Coreā€¦ Iā€™ve reopened TRUNK-5492 and added the example there: > ---
**Author:** ![mogoodrich](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/mogoodrich/32/3324_2.png) [@mogoodrich](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/mogoodrich)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2019, 6:47pm UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/64 "2019-11-21T18:47:58Z")
Also, digging a little deeper Iā€™m not sure I love adding ā€œdummyā€ tables to the data model just to be able to support Hibernate annotations, for example: ``` mysql> describe obs_unused_fields; +--------------+----------+------+-----+---------+-------+ | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra | +--------------+----------+------+-----+---------+-------+ | obs_id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | | | changed_by | int(11) | YES | | NULL | | | date_changed | datetime | YES | | NULL | | +--------------+----------+------+-----+---------+-------+ 3 rows in set (0.00 sec) mysql> describe provider_unused_fields; +-------------+------------+------+-----+---------+-------+ | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra | +-------------+------------+------+-----+---------+-------+ | provider_id | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | | | description | varchar(1) | YES | | NULL | | +-------------+------------+------+-----+---------+-------+ 2 rows in set (0.00 sec) ``` See for an explanation: > Sorry for weighing in on this so late in the process. fyi @dkayiwa @mksd @wyclif @mseaton @burke ---
**Author:** ![burke](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/burke/32/17_2.png) [@burke](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/burke)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2019, 9:29am UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/65 "2019-12-03T09:29:41Z")
> [@mogoodrich](#): > > Also, digging a little deeper Iā€™m not sure I love adding ā€œdummyā€ tables to the data model just to be able to support Hibernate annotations Agree. Creating tables like `obs_unused_fields` and `provider_unused_fields` is an ugly workaround that suggests weā€™re doing something wrong. For example, since `Obs` extends `BaseChangeableOpenmrsData`, then it _should_ have `changed_by` and `date_changed` attributesā€¦ or it shouldnā€™t extend `BaseChangeableOpenmrsData`. Similarly, for `Provider`, either we add a `provider.description` attribute or `Provider` shouldnā€™t extend `BaseCustomizeableMetadata` (i.e., we need a version of metadata that doesnā€™t include a description). It would be good to get some input from @wyclif. ---
**Author:** ![wyclif](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/wyclif/32/19607_2.png) [@wyclif](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/wyclif)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2019, 2:41am UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/66 "2019-12-17T02:41:29Z")
I actually made some changes to datafilter module to be able to work with hbm files so the switch to annotations is not really necessary anymore. I will just revert back to xml. ---
**Author:** ![wyclif](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/wyclif/32/19607_2.png) [@wyclif](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/wyclif)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 6:40am UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/67 "2019-12-19T06:40:54Z")
I reverted the use of annotations for obs, providers and users ---
**Author:** ![dkayiwa](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/dkayiwa/32/179_2.png) [@dkayiwa](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/dkayiwa)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2019, 7:19am UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/68 "2019-12-19T07:19:36Z")
How about Patient/Person? ---
**Author:** ![mozzy](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/mozzy/32/11815_2.png) [@mozzy](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/mozzy)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2019, 9:50am UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/69 "2019-12-20T09:50:27Z")
> [@wyclif](#): > > I actually made some changes to datafilter module to be able to work with hbm files so the switch to annotations is not really necessary anymore. I will just revert back to xml. @wyclif , thats great, but i still dont see any reason for reverting back to xml. Thats sounds to me like a regression not a progreesion. Actually we would just work more harder to completely switch to annotations. To me the revert is unnecesarry unless some thing was breaking. ---
**Author:** ![dkayiwa](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/dkayiwa/32/179_2.png) [@dkayiwa](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/dkayiwa)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2019, 10:53am UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/70 "2019-12-22T10:53:00Z")
@ruhanga so when are we having the full release? Are we gonna miss out on releasing this year? ---
**Author:** ![ruhanga](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/ruhanga/32/8318_2.png) [@ruhanga](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/ruhanga)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2019, 6:51pm UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/71 "2019-12-23T18:51:22Z")
> [@dkayiwa](#): > > Are we gonna miss out on releasing this year? I hope that we can have the full release before this year closes. > [@dkayiwa](#): > > How about Patient/Person? The [fix to this](https://github.com/openmrs/openmrs-core/commit/8764b21ed635b25e5115a82a1c5a22a98edd881e) was made, and somehow I missed a notification. @mogoodrich, I hope that there are no more pressing issues in implementing the platform 2.3.x series except from [TRUNK-5691](https://issues.openmrs.org/browse/TRUNK-5691)? Could we have a full release, then any further fixes can get merged in maintenance versions? cc: @burke, @jennifer, @herbert24, @christine ---
**Author:** ![mozzy](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/mozzy/32/11815_2.png) [@mozzy](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/mozzy)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2019, 8:20am UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/72 "2019-12-24T08:20:41Z")
@ruhanga , Am also waiting on your full release , because we agreed that the ref app 2.10 should now run on platform 2.3 rather than 2.2.0. ---
**Author:** ![ruhanga](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/ruhanga/32/8318_2.png) [@ruhanga](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/ruhanga)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2019, 1:24pm UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/73 "2019-12-30T13:24:50Z")
Hi dear all, > [@ruhanga](#): > > Could we have a full release Sorry that this is coming in during the peaks of the current festive season, which may partly be the _why_ we have no digressions on having a full platform 2.3.0 release at the moment. Nonetheless, all the items on [this projectā€™s management page](https://wiki.openmrs.org/display/RES/Platform+2.3.0+Release+Management+Page) have been addressed and the fixes & features successfully tested by community volunteers and at least two implementation ([Mekom Solutions](https://talk.openmrs.org/g/MekomSolutions) & [PIH](https://talk.openmrs.org/g/PIH)) Iā€™d like to therefore go ahead to have this full release effected unless there are blocking issues to address before **31st December 2019** which is tomorrow Tuesday. Thanks Kind regards Nathan cc: @burke, @dkayiwa, @mksd, @wyclif, @mogoodrich, @mozzy, @jennifer, @herbert24 ---
**Author:** ![herbert24](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/herbert24/32/8178_2.png) [@herbert24](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/herbert24)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2019, 1:27pm UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/74 "2019-12-30T13:27:36Z")
wel done @ruhanga ,@mozzy could this be of great use for the release of reference app?? ---
**Author:** ![dkayiwa](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/dkayiwa/32/179_2.png) [@dkayiwa](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/dkayiwa)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2019, 2:48pm UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/75 "2019-12-30T14:48:57Z")
@ruhanga as per my comment above, the revert for annotations was not complete. ---
**Author:** ![ruhanga](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/ruhanga/32/8318_2.png) [@ruhanga](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/ruhanga)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2019, 3:46pm UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/76 "2019-12-30T15:46:39Z")
Thanks @dkayiwa. I hope that we can be able to have these fixed by second half of January 2020 so we get the full platform version released out. @mogoodrich, @wyclif any thoughts about the changes on Patient/Person and whether on not to revert them? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![permissionerror](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/permissionerror/32/10859_2.png) [@permissionerror](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/permissionerror)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2020, 11:35am UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/77 "2020-01-02T11:35:31Z")
šŸ˜ƒ Glad to say that we now have [https://uat-platform.openmrs.org](https://uat-platform.openmrs.org) for UAT testing of Platform! For more information, check [https://wiki.openmrs.org/display/ISM/OpenMRS+environments](https://wiki.openmrs.org/display/ISM/OpenMRS+environments). See the talk thread [here](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/uat-server-for-openmrs-core-platform-is-now-available/26176). ---
**Author:** ![mogoodrich](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/mogoodrich/32/3324_2.png) [@mogoodrich](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/mogoodrich)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2020, 5:06pm UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/78 "2020-01-02T17:06:21Z")
Are Patient/Person the only things using annotations right now? I would go aI head and revert them as well for consistency. Using annotations seems like a modern/easier way to handle mappings, but it did introduce some behavior changes (ie TRUNK-5492 and TRUNK-5691). I also created a small clean-up ticket (but this isnā€™t necessary for the release): > Take care, Mark ---
**Author:** ![tendomart](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/tendomart/32/6753_2.png) [@tendomart](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/tendomart)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 8:03am UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/79 "2020-01-03T08:03:37Z")
Some more good news here , [UAT-SERVER](https://uat-platform.openmrs.org) for Platform is [now available](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/uat-server-for-openmrs-core-platform-is-now-available/26176) future testing is now easier. @ruhanga @mozzy ---
**Author:** ![ruhanga](https://talk.openmrs.org/user_avatar/talk.openmrs.org/ruhanga/32/8318_2.png) [@ruhanga](https://talk.openmrs.org/u/ruhanga)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2020, 6:43pm UTC](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795/80 "2020-01-04T18:43:12Z")
Thank you very much @permissionerror, @tendomart . This is great that we have a platform server to have the minor releases tested before a full release is made. šŸ™‚ [Previous page](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795.md?page=3) [Next page](https://talk.openmrs.org/t/openmrs-platform-2-3-0-beta-released-for-testing/24795.md?page=5)