Not Equal and Not Equivalent clause coverage calculation handling #291
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
Coverage report
Test suite run success451 tests passing in 31 suites. Report generated by 🧪jest coverage report action from ceb446f |
hossenlopp
requested changes
Dec 11, 2023
| // If so, we will want to treat this as a 'Not Equivalent' or 'Not Equal' expression which we can do so | ||
| // by mapping the 'Equal' or 'Equivalent' clause localId to that of the 'Not' clause | ||
| if (statement.operand) { | ||
| if (statement.operand.type === 'Equivalent' || statement.operand.type === 'Equal') { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This whole set of logic could use a test case. It's one of the few things in here that isn't tested.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good call! I added a unit test for the !~...however, I do not think I am able to add a unit test for the != logic at the moment since an update to the translator will be coming soon that puts a localId on the Equal expression (but it doesn't right now). Am I correct in this? @birick1 may have additional insight as well
hossenlopp
approved these changes
Dec 12, 2023
hossenlopp
requested changes
Dec 12, 2023
hossenlopp
requested changes
Dec 13, 2023
hossenlopp
approved these changes
Dec 13, 2023
hossenlopp
approved these changes
Dec 14, 2023
lmd59
approved these changes
Dec 15, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Summary
#287 contains CMS69 which includes a
!~(not equivalent) operation in the CQL that has some undesirable coverage calculation behavior due to the way Not Equivalent and Not Equal operations are translated from CQL to ELM json. This PR provides a workaround so that Not Equivalent and Not Equal clauses behave like Equal and Equivalent clauses.New behavior
Before, in order to reach 100% clause coverage with CMS69, test cases where
BMIEncounter.classWAS equivalent to 'virtual' AND whereBMIEncounter.classwas NOT equivalent to 'virtual' needed to be provided. This behavior did not match the clause coverage highlighting where only the not equivalent test case was needed for the clause to be highlighted as covered. Now, the coverage calculation matches the coverage highlighting. For CMS69 to reach 100% clause coverage, ONLY a test case whereBMIEncounter.classis NOT equivalent (!~) to 'virtual' is needed.Code changes
ClauseResultsHelpers.ts- a workaround was added to for this specific case infindAllLocalIdsInStatementso that the result of the equal or equivalent is now the result of the not.Testing guidance
npm run checknpm run cli -- detailed -m <path-to-CMS69> --patients-directory <path-to-CMS69-patients-directory> --trust-meta-profile true --debugon the master branch with the test cases provided in the should result in 96% clause coverage.!~clause is now included in the calculation.npm linkthis branch to fqm-testify to play around with different test cases.