Reference Application 2.7 Release Impedements

Software
#1

The following module against their owners are still pending on the Release Issue Tracking Page.We are still not yet sure which version to consider,please indicate where necessary.Thanks

1.chartsearch - 2.1.0 by @k.joseph and @dkayiwa

2.fhir - 1.7.0 by @surangak

3.reportingrest @mogoodrich, @dkayiwa , @raff

4.rerencemetadata @wyclif ,@darius ,@dkayiwa, @raff

@wyclif , @mseaton and @darius

FYI @ssmusoke

Please Check the list if you got tagged and edit the Release Issue Trachking Page to indicate wether you are carrying the current module version forward or doing a new release. https://wiki.openmrs.org/display/RES/Reference+Application+2.7+Release+Issue+Tracking Thanks alot.

Regards Martyn

#2

Also note my comment under the IDGEN module… it would be worth asking the team currently working on it if it is ready for for release and would make sense to do a new release for Ref App 2.7. (4.4.1 is the most recent release, from April, but there has been some OWA work since then) @dkayiwa any thoughts?

Take care, Mark

#3

The current ongoing work is not ready for release. It needs like some more two weeks of final touches. So for now, i would go with version 4.4.1

1 Like
#4

Cool, that’s what I figured, just wanted to check… thanks @dkayiwa!

#5

@k.joseph any good news from chart search?

#7

FYI @mogoodrich seen changes at the reportingrest repo. https://github.com/openmrs/openmrs-module-reportingrest/commits/master

Are you releasing some thing new other than 1.9.0 as per https://wiki.openmrs.org/display/RES/Reference+Application+2.7+Release+Issue+Tracking

FYI @raff There are changes at referencemetadata repo https://github.com/openmrs/openmrs-module-referencemetadata/commits/master are you doing a new release or we go with 2.6.0?

#8

@tendomart, yes, I’ll be releasing a new version today together with updated concepts from CIEL.

1 Like
#9

@raff alright waiting for that.

#10

Update: there are some invalid concepts in the latest version of CIEL, which prevents us from using it in RA 2.7. I’m checking with Andy what to do.

1 Like
#11

@tendomart re: reportingrest… no, just go with 1.9.0. We are currently building some new features and making changes to coreapps and reportinrest, among others, but I cut a stable (to the best of my knowledge!) release of those modules before we started adding our new changes. So go ahead and use the versions I’ve listed, and the new features we are adding now will end up in 2.8.

If 2.7 gets significantly delayed for some reason, we can reconsider.

Take care! Mark

1 Like
#12

Oh, duh… sorry, I see the reason for your question now… reportingrest was not one of the modules I released… :slight_smile: Let me double check…

Take care, Mark

#13

Yes, we need to do a new release of reportingrest, would be 1.9.0. I can go ahead and do it, as long as no one (@raff @mseaton @wyclif @darius @dkayiwa) sees any issues with the new changes I made.

If I don’t hear anything in the next 24 hours, I’m just going to go ahead and release… :slight_smile:

Take care, Mark

#14

@mogoodrich thanks will be waiting for that.

#15

Also, @dkayiwa I saw you made a new commit in coreapps to fix a failing unit test? I’m guessing we might need to do a new release of coreapps as well? If so, I don’t think there should be an issue on my end… I’m actively working on the various program widgets I added within coreapps, but this is “new” functionality and even if there are incomplete elements in those widgets it should not impact other functionality (and they wouldn’t appear in the reference app unless somebody specifically configures them).

Take care, Mark

#16

Yes, we will need a new release of coreapps to fix sticky notes functionality.

#17

I say, go ahead and thanks for doing that!

#18

Thanks @raff!

I just realized I need to do a another release of reporting as well, but I’ll confer with @mseaton about that.

Re: coreapps, just let when you’ve confirmed that the sticky notes thing is fixed and I can do another release, making sure I don’t have too much half-finished code hanging around… :slight_smile:

Take care, Mark

#19

@raff we just had a quick discussion on the leadership re: the issue with CIEL… can you describe more about it here or on another Talk thread? Andy didn’t have all the details, but it sounded like there may be some debate as to whether it was actually a problem with the CIEL dictionary, or a code change that was interpreting actually valid concepts as invalid.

fyi @burke

Take care, Mark

1 Like
#20

Raff, I think we have a problem with the code. Your examples are of short names which are allowed to be duplicated. Also, there have not been significant changes to the CIEL content since prior release, so I think rolling back CIEL is not going to fix this. Seems like a JIRA needs to be logged and someone check the validation code ASAP.

#21

I identified the cause to be a mishandling of UTF-8 encoding in the conversion script from platform 1.6.x to 2.0.x. I will work on fixing it today and afterwards ask @akanter to do a new release of CIEL for platform 2.0.x. Created issue at https://issues.openmrs.org/browse/RA-1434

Update: I fixed the issue. I will do the Reference Metadata release now…