Steven Jeuris

Results 104 comments of Steven Jeuris

Another formulation I just wrote up while looking into the different definitions again: - Dependent devices: all primary devices another primary device depends on the registration of to run the...

I would refrain from adding it within `StudyProtocolSnapshot`, because protocol snapshots right now carry an "identity" which shouldn't change if the version tag changes. However, that thinking [may be a...

There are currently also missing `package.json` files for the kotlin packages: - Kotlin-DateTime-library-kotlinx-datetime - kotlin-kotlin-stdlib - kotlinx-serialization-kotlinx-serialization-core - kotlinx-serialization-kotlinx-serialization-json

> But, I understand the need. Maybe ProtocolService.getAllForOwner should return a VersionedStudyProtocol, which contains StudyProtocolSnapshot and ProtocolVersion. @bardram Would this fulfill the current use case? So a new type, only...

> I believe GetAllForOwner, 'GetVersionHistoryFor', and GetBy together serves all the functionalities needed in ProtocolService. True. It would simply be a shortcut to remove the need to do one extra...

> We also keep a copy of studyProtocolSnapshot in other places tho: Recruitment, StudyDeployment.. we should also consider adding this protocolVersion to them, if we decided to go for this...

Based [on my last analysis](https://github.com/cph-cachet/carp.core-kotlin/pull/465#discussion_r1518565097), it seemed like there was no real potential reuse for `URL` validation: it couldn't be used by `WebTask`, since that needs to take the special...

In relation to the `inviteNewParticipantGroup` call specifically, creating and inviting participant groups should really be separate calls, and `inviteNewParticipantGroup` should be deprecated. This is related to #319. This would be...

Closed as it sounds like the other parts of this PR which weren't merged need more clarity in terms of what they hope to achieve.

> we should be able to know ... I agree this is relevant info, but as it stands now, I understand "we" is the researcher. Any of the solutions suggested...