Mark, I think two different things are being confused here. Vitals as a concept is a group with sub-concepts weight and height. But vitals as an observation doesn't exist without both weight and height sub-observations. The concept is more like an XSD and the obs like XML.
This is admittedly not the way forms are organized, there would need to be some pruning (or worse, unpruning if they went back later and added weight). The alternative would be to store null non-voided obs where there are group members without values. In either case, only the number of non-voided obs would be important. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Goodrich Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OPENMRS-DEV] isObsGrouping vs hasGroupMembers Yes, the ticket I entered is here: TRUNK-1654 The original issue was that getGroupMembers() returned voided and non-voided obs, while I felt that it should only return non-voided obs. . This change has been made. (And we added getGroupMembers(boolean includeVoided) if you want to override this). We also decided to change the corresponding hasGroupMembers() to only return true if a obs has non-voided obs members. And, again, we added a hasGroupMembers(Boolean includeVoided) to override this). No clear decision was made about isObsGrouping in the ticket... and I admit, I didn't give it much thought, but after doing some testing today I feel that isObsGrouping() should delegate to hasGroupMembers(true) instead of hasGroupMembers(false). Here's the logic. Say you have a form and add a "Vitals" parent obs with a child "Weight" obs and a child "Height" obs. Then, for some reason, you void the "Weight" and "Height" obs. Now I would say that "Vitals" currently doesn't have any group members (hasGroupMembers()==false) but that "Vitals" is still an obs grouping (isObsGrouping()==true)... that is, although it currently doesn't have any associated obs, it is an obs that is used to group obs, not to store an actual observation. This still isn't perfect-for instance, if you add a "Vitals" obs but never add any children, isObsGrouping() would be false, even if the obs was only meant to group other obs--but it seems closer to correct. Mark From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]]<mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> On Behalf Of Friedman, Roger (CDC/CGH/DGHA) (CTR) Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 3:00 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OPENMRS-DEV] isObsGrouping vs hasGroupMembers All those were added by you, Mark. Could you recreate the logic behind it or point us to a ticket? I can clearly see why a voided obs wouldn't count toward creating an obs group, likely they are just mistake corrections. From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]]<mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> On Behalf Of Mark Goodrich Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 2:42 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OPENMRS-DEV] isObsGrouping vs hasGroupMembers Yeah... I can enter a ticket and make the fix... I believe that all needs to be done is to change isObsGrouping to call hasGroupMembers(true) instead of hasGroupMembers(false)... Mark From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]]<mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> On Behalf Of Ben Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 2:13 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OPENMRS-DEV] isObsGrouping vs hasGroupMembers Yes, that way sounds right, needs a ticket. I assume this was changed because of some other method that gets called down the line was changed? Ben On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Mark Goodrich <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Just a minor point here... there were some changes made to the way the isObsGrouping and hasGroupMembers works in 1.9.0 but I'm questioning now if we've made the right decision. To do a quick summary: In 1.9.0, the default parameter-less obs.hasGroupMembers() and obs.isObsGrouping() methods return true if the obs in question havs 1 or more *non-voided* member obs. This seems like the right behavior for hasGroupMembers (and there also now a hasGroupMembers(Boolean includeVoided) if you want to override this behavior) but I would think perhaps that obs.isObsGrouping() should return true if the obs in question has 1 or more members obs *of any type*, voided *or* non-voided. The logic is like this... if you have an obs that has two child obs that are both voided, even though I would say it "has no group members" I would still consider it "an obs grouping". Thoughts? Mark ________________________________ Click here to unsubscribe<mailto:[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l> from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list ________________________________ Click here to unsubscribe<mailto:[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l> from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list ________________________________ Click here to unsubscribe<mailto:[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l> from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list ________________________________ Click here to unsubscribe<mailto:[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l> from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list ________________________________ Click here to unsubscribe<mailto:[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l> from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list _________________________________________ To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to [email protected] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the body (not the subject) of your e-mail. [mailto:[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]
