@ouiliam, I suggest that you request access to JIRA so that in addition to reporting these bugs here you can immediately create tickets, so we can get them ready for work quicker.
(When actually creating a JIRA ticket you’d want to put a bit more info in, e.g. exact steps to reproduce, so that a newbie developer can potentially pick it up.)
@darius thanks, I made an issue here Bahmni - Issues - Bahmni - JIRA
but then got a message “issue not visible”, are there any extra steps I need to do?
@ouiliam I was able to see the issue fine. Are you able to see it now?
I modified the ticket slightly to follow the pattern we’re using for bug reports: Steps to Reproduce, Expected Behavior, Actual Behavior.
Personally I don’t understand why we use an autocomplete widget there, instead of a dropdown, because there would typically be only a small number of allowed options for document type. So, my proposal would be to change this to a dropdown.
Does anyone know the original motivation for the autocomplete and/or think we should stick to that? (@arjun?)
@ouiliam, I am not sure but I think there could be more than one choice available in the drop-down. I believe ‘Patient file’ refers to the underlying concept to which the document will be attached.
This concept is a member of the ‘Patient Document’ set (id:330).
So adding more members to this set should allow selecting more types of patient documents.
Anyway we should definitely add a title to this field to say what it is, eg ‘Document type’ and have it has a drop down.
About having a file name added as a description or something, I don’t know if that’s possible. I suggest for now to use the notes fields.
@ouiliam, as Romain says it is possible to allow multiple possible document types.
Can you please rephrase this ticket so that we:
Add a title to the field so it’s clear what it is
Change it to a dropdown
Is using the notes field sufficient for the filename in your use case? (I don’t think that “filename” is a general enough use case, but “description” might be.)
What I take away from this is that we’re missing some validation in the upload of the files, is this correct? Or, is what you’re saying that regardless of the config and which type is chosen, PDFs do not display in the clinical app, but JPGs do?
Are you saying that there’s some magic undocumented behavior hardcoded against specific concept names? Or does this have to do with the datatype and complex handler of the concepts in question?
I’m not sure of the reasons, but this should be documented, at least how to get it to work by adding the filetype “Image” to concept set “File Documents”.