Cache function ref

[rdingwell]

trafficstars

This is primarily a performance enhancement. When function use is defined within a Query, every iteration of elements in the where clause caused a re-evaluation of finding the correct FunctionDef to use. When there are a large number of items to go through this becomes a very expensive process, mainly due to the type comparisons that are used to perform the FunctionDef lookups.

This PR implements caching of the FunctionDef look ups with a FunctionRef the first time it is executed.

Note that this PR also contains updates to 3 node modules that were not passing audit tests Pull requests into cql-execution require the following. Submitter and reviewer should ✔ when done. For items that are not-applicable, mark "N/A" and ✔.

This is primarily a performance enhancement. When function use is defined within a Query, every iteration of elements in the where clause caused a re-evaluation of finding the correct FunctionDef to use. When there are a large number of items to go through this becomes a very expensive process, mainly due to the type comparisons that are used to perform the FunctionDef lookups.

This PR implements caching of the FunctionDef look ups with a FunctionRef the first time it is executed.

Note that this PR also contains updates to 3 node modules that were not passing audit tests Pull requests into cql-execution require the following. Submitter and reviewer should ✔ when done. For items that are not-applicable, mark "N/A" and ✔.

Submitter:

• [x] This pull request describes why these changes were made
• [x] Code diff has been done and been reviewed (it does not contain: additional white space, not applicable code changes, debug statements, etc.)
• [] Tests are included and test edge cases
• [x] Tests have been run locally and pass
• [x] Code coverage has not gone down and all code touched or added is covered.
• [x] Code passes lint and prettier (hint: use npm run test:plus to run tests, lint, and prettier)
• [x] All dependent libraries are appropriately updated or have a corresponding PR related to this change
• [x] cql4browsers.js built with npm run build:browserify if source changed.

Reviewer:

Name:

• [ ] Code is maintainable and reusable, reuses existing code and infrastructure where appropriate, and accomplishes the task’s purpose
• [ ] The tests appropriately test the new code, including edge cases
• [ ] You have tried to break the code

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 77.77778% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 87.06%. Comparing base (2cd244c) to head (befc506).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/elm/reusable.ts	77.77%	3 Missing and 1 partial :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #326      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   87.04%   87.06%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          52       52              
  Lines        4517     4524       +7     
  Branches     1273     1275       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits         3932     3939       +7     
  Misses        377      377              
  Partials      208      208              

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[cmoesel]

I'll also note that the npm audit is unresolvable because the vulnerable module has not yet released a patch.

[cmoesel]

@rdingwell - I got to run a FQM regression on this using the updated FQM regression script in fqm-regression#321. The changes in this branch did fail regression. They don't affect the "statement results" but do affect the "clause results" -- and it seems to all be related to calls to FHIRHelpers.ToInterval. I'm not familiar enough w/ FQM or the regression script to make much sense of it or determine if it really is a problem or not, but... I thought I'd let you know.

If you're interested, here is an example:

• Measure CQL: EXM125-7.3.000.cql
• Measure Library: library-EXM125-7.3.000.json
• Test Patients: EXM125-7.3.000 tests
• Results w/ master: results-tests-denom-EXM125-bundle.json, results-tests-numer-EXM125-bundle.json
• Results w/ cache_function_ref: results-tests-denom-EXM125-bundle.json, results-tests-numer-EXM125-bundle.json
• Diff of results: EXM125-results-diff.html.zip (zipped because GitHub doesn't support attaching .html files)

I know you said you were going to rework this PR -- so let me know if/when you want me to run regression again.