New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fixes for issue #1048. FhirInstanceValidator::validate() now looking… #1050

Merged
merged 5 commits into from Sep 8, 2018

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@anthonys123
Contributor

anthonys123 commented Aug 6, 2018

… in meta/profile section of request prior to calling InstanceValidator::validate().

Fixes for issue #1048. FhirInstanceValidator::validate() now looking …
…in meta/profile section of request prior to calling InstanceValidator::validate().
@anthonys123

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

anthonys123 commented Aug 6, 2018

Hi James - I just realized that there are two more FhirInstanceValidator.java files I need to commit these changes to also. I'll do that now and create another pull request.

@anthonys123

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

anthonys123 commented Aug 6, 2018

Additional changes to the other FhirInstanceValidator.java files pushed to my master branch. Should be ready for review.

anthonys123 and others added some commits Aug 10, 2018

@jamesagnew jamesagnew merged commit 7b7f3c3 into jamesagnew:master Sep 8, 2018

0 of 2 checks passed

continuous-integration/appveyor/pr Waiting for AppVeyor build to complete
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build is in progress
Details
@jamesagnew

This comment has been minimized.

Owner

jamesagnew commented Sep 10, 2018

Hi Anthony,

After merging this in, we had a few complaints that the new requirement for SD URLs to contain the string StructureDefinition was breaking existing working code. I have rolled this back. Any objections?

@anthonys123

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

anthonys123 commented Sep 10, 2018

No objections. As the requirement for that string is in the specification, should we incorporate this at some point even if users have to modify their deployments?

Thanks for inquiring.

@anthonys123

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

anthonys123 commented Sep 11, 2018

Hi James - quick follow-up question (also e-mailed you). Did you mean that you rolled the entire implementation for this issue out or only the code block that looks for the "StructureDefinition" text? I interpreted your comment to mean the latter - was that correct?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment