dotasek

Superseded by https://github.com/hapifhir/hapi-fhir/pull/5772 - HAPI, at the time of this comment, uses version 6.3.11 of core.

Test for commit linking 99ea673b91c0e20b46ce21a6cef3dff17ebac1de

Merging after discussion with @grahamegrieve Any failed checks are irrelevant, as this only impacts the README.md

@jamesagnew These are the passthrough message failures I was discussing: https://github.com/hapifhir/hapi-fhir/blob/c13d2f5e2945f26057d99d23ed4b63c7b4ccf4e3/hapi-fhir-validation/src/test/java/org/hl7/fhir/r4/validation/FhirInstanceValidatorR4Test.java#L1753 https://github.com/hapifhir/hapi-fhir/blob/c13d2f5e2945f26057d99d23ed4b63c7b4ccf4e3/hapi-fhir-jpaserver-test-r4/src/test/java/ca/uhn/fhir/jpa/dao/r4/FhirResourceDaoR4ValidateTest.java#L1624 It looks to me, from tracing, that core is no longer producing these, but it's difficult to tell...

The change I have tried to tackle so far is InstanceValidator's reliance on a new method called processTxIssues: https://github.com/hapifhir/org.hl7.fhir.core/blob/f2fe93a1d7dfe66d1c70a7ef4379ed511a81e1c7/org.hl7.fhir.validation/src/main/java/org/hl7/fhir/validation/instance/InstanceValidator.java#L1500 This gets used throughout the validation process to determine validity. Unlike...

@jamesagnew this is a failure that appears to no longer be a valid test: https://github.com/hapifhir/hapi-fhir/blob/c13d2f5e2945f26057d99d23ed4b63c7b4ccf4e3/hapi-fhir-jpaserver-test-r4/src/test/java/ca/uhn/fhir/jpa/interceptor/validation/ValidationMessageSuppressingInterceptorTest.java#L73 If I run this with previous versions of the Validator, it does show me the...

This commit decrements the SQL query/commit counts for validation. [45cf37e](https://github.com/hapifhir/hapi-fhir/pull/5772/commits/45cf37ea5d99c0f589691852fc3aeee9787367a5) Since InstanceValidation in the core library dictates much of this work, and the logic behind terminology validation has changed, it...

> Approved pending resolution of comments and also strongly suggest getting James to look at the most senstive production code changes. I wholeheartedly agree. Thank you for the initial review,...

> Hi @dotasek and @jamesagnew . Has there been any progress on this PR. We are waiting on the resolution of this terminology passthrough validation issue for the AU Sparked...

For https://github.com/hapifhir/hapi-fhir/pull/5772/commits/4f491e8ee31d75abc64b2613154232b08efd8ff4 there was a change in the underlying test. The history of this test seems to have waffled back and forth between expected responses, so I referred to the...