DEV - Improve order flow main #3815
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add parent models and Tomte models for the new validation flow.
Split logic into modules based on workflow
### Fixed - Some typing and a blueprint method for converting pydantic errors to our own custom errors.
### Added - Validation that the provided applications exist in the database
### Added - Check that the application provided is compatible with the chosen workflow.
### Added - Applications are validated not to be archived.
### Fixed - Standardised rule naming.
### Added - Added validation making sure that the gene panels exist in status db
### Added - Adds validation ensuring gene panels are not specified more than once.
### Added - Buffer validation for orders attempting to skip reception control
### Added - Validation ensuring that the subject id is not the same as the case name.
### Added - Validation ensuring that the sample name and subject id can not be the same.
### Added - Validation that the concentration is provided for all samples when skip reception control is attempted.
### Added - Container names are required when using well plates.
### Added - Validation that well position is filled in for samples in a well plate.
enhance order submission integration tests
### Fixed - No hard coding of delivery type or workflow in the storing services
### Fixed - The pre commit matches master
### Fixed - MutantSample and MicrosaltSample dumps the verified_organism value
### Fixed - The repeated case name rule only considers new cases
### Fixed - The volume interval is not validated for Pacbio orders since the interval is not what the customers need either way
### Fixed - Panels are optional for existing cases.
add test for validation pool
add tests for mutant validator
|
🥇 |
add other organism to microbial sample models and unit test for adding new organism
…mes (#4135) (patch) ### Fixed - validate_sample_names_different_from_case_names work with existing cases
### Fixed - Export skip reception control to LIMS
|
Logging deploy ...
Getting deployer... done.
Getting last commit message and SHA... done.
Getting version of deploy scripts... /home/js.diazboada
done.
Log deploy... done.
cg, version 67.0.0
[js.diazboada@hasta:~] [S_base] $ up
Stopping at filesystem boundary (GIT_DISCOVERY_ACROSS_FILESYSTEM not set).
repository is clean
Logging deploy ...
Getting deployer... done.
Getting last commit message and SHA... done.
Getting version of deploy scripts... /home/js.diazboada
done.
Log deploy... done.
cg, version 67.0.0 |
|
Deployed to the VMs |
15 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Development branch for the https://github.com/Clinical-Genomics/project-planning/issues/540 project.
Moves the order validation from the Frontend to the backend.
Frontend branch: https://github.com/Clinical-Genomics/clinical-genomics-ui/pull/514
Added
Changed
Fixed
How to prepare for test
uspaxaHow to test
Expected test outcome
Review
Thanks for filling in who performed the code review and the test!
This version is a
Implementation Plan