feat OH2-285: exams crud

[gasp]

See OH2-285.

Admin/Exams CRUD

[SteveGT96]

Thanks @gasp for the efforts.

I've noticed that the filter on the exam type field is not working, and the procedure field is not validated correctly. I can input 500 as value(I think procedures for the moment are 1, 2, 3. @mwithi could you confirm that ?).

[mwithi]

Thanks @gasp for the efforts.

I've noticed that the filter on the exam type field is not working, and the procedure field is not validated correctly. I can input 500 as value(I think procedures for the moment are 1, 2, 3. @mwithi could you confirm that ?).

I confirm

[gasp]

Thanks for the feedback and the testing, I fixed those issues!

[SilverD3]

Wrong "save button"'s label

It should be "Save exam", I think.

Also procedure field should be same length as code field for suitable design

[gasp]

Wrong "save button"'s label

It should be "Save exam", I think.

Also procedure field should be same length as code field for suitable design

Ha ha, I copypasted 😅
Thanks for the feedback!

[gasp]

Fixed, thanks @SilverD3

[mwithi]

Procedure 1, 2 or 3 imply that, aside the default value, one should also define other sets of data:

• Procedure 1: a list of available "string" results
• Procedure 2: a list of all "boolean" results
• Proceudre 3: exact value (it will be typed in by the laboratorist)

For this reason I would change Procedure field to a selector in first sight.
Please have a look at how the feature is working in the GUI.

Procedure 1:

Procedure 2:

Procedure 3 (no predefined results):

[mwithi]

Also, I get this error on saving with real backend:

[gasp]

Also, I get this error on saving with real backend:

My bad, backend expects an examtype, not a type. It's fixed now!

What does the "lock" property stand for?

[mwithi]

What does the "lock" property stand for?

is for record versioning, you should read from the DB and send back: if it is changed the update will be refused for concurring access

[SteveGT96]

Hi @gasp. Please, fix the pipeline and then we could move on.

[gasp]

Hi @gasp. Please, fix the pipeline and then we could move on.

should I fix #601 (comment) in a separate pull request then ?

[SteveGT96]

Hi @gasp. Please, fix the pipeline and then we could move on.

should I fix #601 (comment) in a separate pull request then ?

Sorry, I did not see it early. You could fix it here before we move on.

[gasp]

Changed procedure to be a select

[gasp]

@mwithi @SteveGT96 , As I am coding the changes, I realize that we can't edit examRows without having an exam, so I would not recommend having both in the same form (such as in the GUI view).

Thus, that handling the examRows is not a trivial change and involves design decisions. I would recommend reviewing it separately. Can we merge this PR for clarity?

[mwithi]

@mwithi @SteveGT96 , As I am coding the changes, I realize that we can't edit examRows without having an exam, so I would not recommend having both in the same form (such as in the GUI view).

Thus, that handling the examRows is not a trivial change and involves design decisions. I would recommend reviewing it separately. Can we merge this PR for clarity?

I think we should have an ExamDTO including its ExamRowDTOs and to send it as is to API for persistance. @SilverD3 don't you mind to create an issue for this?

@gasp let's merge this one and then we'll see how to move on.

[mwithi]

Approve temporary work in order to better design the model