Skip to content
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

Validate operation unsupported #15

Open
alejosv opened this issue Sep 10, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Validate operation unsupported #15

alejosv opened this issue Sep 10, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request priority-mid Medium Priority Items

Comments

@alejosv
Copy link

alejosv commented Sep 10, 2024

Great project, congrats !!!!!.

I'm load the implementation guide from Costa Rica and not have any problems. I trying use the validate operation but the "candle server" send response the follow OperationOutcome:

{
    "resourceType": "OperationOutcome",
    "id": "b5827e82-2cc8-475a-8454-093da2fca868",
    "issue": [
        {
            "severity": "error",
            "code": "not-found",
            "diagnostics": "Operation $validate does not have an executable implementation on this server."
        }
    ]
}

This operation is unsupported?

@alejosv alejosv changed the title Validate operation support Validate operation unsupported Sep 10, 2024
@GinoCanessa GinoCanessa added enhancement New feature or request priority-mid Medium Priority Items labels Sep 10, 2024
@GinoCanessa
Copy link
Collaborator

I have held off on adding validation support so far because of terminology server requirements. Candle is not a full terminology server and will not be able to validate larger systems (e.g. LOINC, Snomed).

That said, we should be able to configure validation with everything else (e.g., loaded packages, profiles, Code Systems, etc.). We could also add support for an external terminology server.

I flagged this as a medium priority so that I put some thought into the implementation. It should be fairly straightforward - my biggest concerns are not technical (e.g., I do not want to add a lot of load to tx.fhir.org). If you have additional thoughts, please share.

Cheers!

@alejosv
Copy link
Author

alejosv commented Sep 10, 2024

Great!!! I agree that the server can validate everything else and be able to count on terminological validations with external servers (best implementation) event in test.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request priority-mid Medium Priority Items
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants