-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 324
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
fix(asset_location): added duty_staff endpoint #1689
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #1689 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 61.39% 61.43% +0.03%
===========================================
Files 211 211
Lines 11593 11639 +46
Branches 1660 1674 +14
===========================================
+ Hits 7118 7150 +32
- Misses 4203 4212 +9
- Partials 272 277 +5 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
@cp-coder remove the maximum limit of 3 users |
Okay, I will remove the validation |
LGTM |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When removing a duty staff user from asset location, those records are not set to deleted=True
instead it's permanently deleted right?
cc: @sainak
yeah we can use a custom through model cc: @vigneshhari |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@cp-coder I don't see a custom through model that inherits BaseModel
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When removing a duty staff user from asset location, those records are not set to deleted=True instead it's permanently deleted right?
There still seems to be no API endpoint/way to unlink a staff from a location.
We can just remove the staff from the doctor/staff list in the location form and it will automatically unlink the staff. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But this just deletes and recreates the same objects everytime a new user is assigned to a location. Say there are three users, A, B, C. And you want to remove user C and add user D.
In the current approach, you are removing all existing ones for a particular location (A, B, C) and you create new M2M records with (A, B, D).
This performs unnecessary soft deletes and create operations for user A and B. And if we inspect the created_date of those records, it'd end up being the new date, although A and B user were linked before this datetime.
Imaging you have 10 users linked to a location. You'd end up recreating 10 records? Why?
This seems unnecessary.
What's required is, two API endpoints:
POST /location/{location__external_id}/duty_staff
which will link a user to a location.
DELETE /location{id}/duty_staff/{external_id}
which will unlink a user from a location (soft-delete).
This would avoid unnecessary soft deletes and creates too, and the created_date
of the m2m record also would be correct.
{"duty_staff": "Staff already assigned to the location"} | ||
) | ||
|
||
user = User.objects.filter(id=duty_staff, home_facility=asset.facility) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This needs to be performed first, we need to check if a use exists before doing anything else, we also need to ensure that the id is an integer or perform some validation on it.
{"duty_staff": "Staff already assigned to the location"} | ||
) | ||
|
||
user = User.objects.filter(id=duty_staff, home_facility=asset.facility) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
use first() here itself. no need for 2 queries.
Marking as hold as the requirements have changed and a more refined feature "User Availability" will be built that adds more depth and it would replace the "Duty Staff for Locations" feature. Issue: ohcnetwork/care_fe#6968 |
reopening the PR, we can fix and merge it for now, as the larger PR of generic scheduling is under the planning phase @rithviknishad can you clear conflict and make it ready for testing |
Closing because of inactivity. |
Feature Request
Proposed Changes
duty_staff
field toasset location
model and serializerAssociated PR
Merge Checklist
/docs
@coronasafe/code-reviewers