I'm trying to figure out how to add a phone extension to a ContactPoint within a FHIR message. I found this extension, https://hl7.org/fhir/2018Jan/extension-contactpoint-extension.html, but I'm unsure of how to code it exactly.
Would it be like this?
"telecom": [
{
"system": "phone",
"value": "(03) 5555 6473",
"use": "work",
"rank": 1,
"extension": [{"url":"http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/contactpoint-extension",
"valueString":123}],
},
{
"system": "phone",
"value": "(03) 3410 5613",
"use": "mobile",
"rank": 2
}
]
Or something like this?
"telecom": {
"system": "phone",
"value": "604-101-1001",
"use": "work"
},
"_telecom": {
"url": "http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/contactpoint-extension",
"valueString": "999"
}
Thank you in advance.
Generally, the expectation is that the extension will be included as part of the value. Extension is really intended for when you want to break the parts of a phone number into its constituent pieces for easy validation, automated dialing, consistent rendering, etc. (And even then, best practice is to still send the value element with a rendered version of everything. That said, that looks mostly correct. The '123' needs to be surrounded by quotes.
Related
I would like to know weither the LanguageMap functionnality is supported (or will be supported) in the Orion-LD implementation.
The languageMap is presented on the folowing video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll-t8Vi9i50
The idea is to be able to request an attribute in a specific language. Exemple with the following JSON :
"pitch": {
"type": "Property",
"value": [
{
"language ": "fr",
"article": "Mariage"
},
{
"language": "en",
"article": "Wedding"
},
{
"language": "ru",
"article": "Выставка!"
},
{
"language": "zh",
"article": "展览"
},
{
"language": "ja",
"article": "展覧会"
}
]
},
How to query a specific language article?
Many thanks in advance for your feedback.
Rgds
LC
Yes, it will most definitely be supported.
Not the very first item on our Backlog, but yeah, it's quite prioritized. Third item in a list of hundreds of items ... (right now - the list is somewhat volatile).
It will not be exactly as in your example, please check the latest published ETSI NGSI-LD spec to get it right. It's something like this:
"pitch": {
"type": "LanguageProperty",
"languageMap": {
"en": "marriage",
"fr": "mariage",
"es": "matrimonio",
...
}
}
If you create an issue on Orion-LD's github, you will be informed as soon as the work begins on this, and I can even send a hint every now and then, before the work actually begins. Hopefully, work will commence on this interesting feature before summer, but I can't really promise anything.
About queries, if I remember correctly, the query will be done simply with
?q=pitch==matrimonio&lang=es
(please check the API spec to verify what I just said)
I'm creating a procedure in a transaction bundle and add practitioners as actors to the performers collection, having different functions. As far as the practitioners references are unique, all is fine. But when I'm trying to add a practitioners twice, with a different functions, an exception is thrown:
Can not process entity with ID[urn:uuid:7165d406-da59-4436-aa93-372ca882c4e5], this is not a valid FHIR ID
I found this message in HAPI FHIR unit tests, but in my case, the uuid seems to be fine. But maybe only one uuid is replaced with the id of the created practitioner.
I'm also not sure, whether this is the correct way for what I want to achieve.
I also tried to add the practioner only once and then add the second role to function.coding. But the resulting entry looks for me kinda strange:
performer": [
{
"function": {
"coding": [
{
"system": "http://somewhere/performer-role",
"code": "88888888"
},
{
"system": "http://somewhere/performer-role",
"code": "99999999",
"display": "Role-2"
}
],
"text": "Role-1"
},
"actor": {
"reference": "Practitioner/2925"
}
},
I'm fairly new to Fhir. Does anybody knows what's wrong here ?
And, what's the recommended practice, to have one performer/actor in to different roles ?
Thanks in advance
P.S. I'm using HAPI FHIR 4.0
Multiple coding repetitions would be used to convey translations - so you're saying that 888888888 and 99999999 are two different codes that represent the same role. If you want to indicate that the same Practitioner had two different roles, then you need to have two different performer repetitions. E.g.
perfomer: [
{
"function": {
"coding": [ {
"system": "http://somewhere/performer-role",
"code": "88888888"
}]},
"actor": {
"reference": "Practitioner/2925"
}
}, {
"function": {
"coding": [ {
"system": "http://somewhere/performer-role",
"code": "99999999"
}]},
"actor": {
"reference": "Practitioner/2925"
}
}
]
is it possible to check, in an ARM Template, if the name for my Virtual Machine already exists?
I am developing a Solution Template for the Azure Marketplace. Maybe it is possible to set a paramter in the UiDefinition uniqe?
The goal is to reproduce this green Hook
A couple notes...
VM Names only need to be unique within a resourceGroup, not within the subscription
Solution Templates must be deployed to empty resourceGroups, so collisions with existing resources aren't possible
For solution templates the preference is that you simply name the VMs for the user, rather than asking - use something that is appropriate for the workload (e.g. jumpbox) - not all solutions do this but we're trying to improve that experience
Given that it's not likely we'll ever build a control that checks for naming collisions on resources without globally unique constraints.
That help?
This looks impossible, according to the documentation.
There are no validation scenarious.
I assume that you should be using the Microsoft.Common.TextBox UI element in your createUiDefinition.json.
I have tried to reproduce a green check by creating a simple createUiDefinition.json as below with a Microsoft.Common.TextBox UI element as shown below.
{
"$schema": "https://schema.management.azure.com/schemas/0.1.2-preview/CreateUIDefinition.MultiVm.json",
"handler": "Microsoft.Compute.MultiVm",
"version": "0.1.2-preview",
"parameters": {
"basics": [
{
"name": "textBoxA",
"type": "Microsoft.Common.TextBox",
"label": "VM Name",
"defaultValue": "",
"toolTip": "Please enter a VM name",
"constraints": {
"required": true
},
"visible": true
}
],
"steps": [],
"outputs": {}
}
}
I am able to reproduce the green check beside the VM Name textbox as shown below:
However, this green check DOES NOT imply the VM Name is Available.
This is because based on my testing, even if I use an existing VM Name in the same subscription, it is still showing the green check.
Based on the official documented constraints that are supported by the Microsoft.Common.TextBox UI element, it DOES NOT VALIDATE Name Availability.
Hope this helps!
While bmoore's point is correct that it's unlikely you would ever need this for a VM (nor is there an API for it), there are other compute resources that do have global naming requirements.
As of 2022 this concept is possible now with the use of the ArmApiControl UI element. It allows you to call ARM apis as part of validation in the createUiDefinition.json. Here is an example using the check name API for an Azure App service.
{
"$schema": "https://schema.management.azure.com/schemas/0.1.2-preview/CreateUIDefinition.MultiVm.json#",
"handler": "Microsoft.Azure.CreateUIDef",
"version": "0.1.2-preview",
"parameters": {
"basics": [
{}
],
"steps": [
{
"name": "domain",
"label": "Domain Names",
"elements": [
{
"name": "domainInfo",
"type": "Microsoft.Common.InfoBox",
"visible": true,
"options": {
"icon": "Info",
"text": "Pick the domain name that you want to use for your app."
}
},
{
"name": "appServiceAvailabilityApi",
"type": "Microsoft.Solutions.ArmApiControl",
"request": {
"method": "POST",
"path": "[concat(subscription().id, '/providers/Microsoft.Web/checknameavailability?api-version=2021-02-01')]",
"body": "[parse(concat('{\"name\":\"', concat('', steps('domain').domainName), '\", \"type\": \"Microsoft.Web/sites\"}'))]"
}
},
{
"name": "domainName",
"type": "Microsoft.Common.TextBox",
"label": "Domain Name Word",
"toolTip": "The name of your app service",
"placeholder": "yourcompanyname",
"constraints": {
"validations": [
{
"regex": "^[a-zA-Z0-9]{4,30}$",
"message": "Alphanumeric, between 4 and 30 characters."
},
{
"isValid": "[not(equals(steps('domain').appServiceAvailabilityApi.nameAvailable, false))]",
"message": "[concat('Error with the url: ', steps('domain').domainName, '. Reason: ', steps('domain').appServiceAvailabilityApi.reason)]"
},
{
"isValid": "[greater(length(steps('domain').domainName), 4)]",
"message": "The unique domain suffix should be longer than 4 characters."
},
{
"isValid": "[less(length(steps('domain').domainName), 30)]",
"message": "The unique domain suffix should be shorter than 30 characters."
}
]
}
},
{
"name": "section1",
"type": "Microsoft.Common.Section",
"label": "URLs to be created:",
"elements": [
{
"name": "domainExamplePortal",
"type": "Microsoft.Common.TextBlock",
"visible": true,
"options": {
"text": "[concat('https://', steps('domain').domainName, '.azurewebsites.net - The main app service URL')]"
}
}
],
"visible": true
}
]
}
],
"outputs": {
"desiredDomainName": "[steps('domain').domainName]"
}
}
}
You can copy the above code and test it in the createUiDefinition.json sandbox azure provides.
Question title pretty much self explanatory. It is possible to create an id-less entity in Orion. An id = .* query returns normally as an id-less, although existing entity. But how can someone delete that entity? This request didn't work obviously:
{
"contextElements": [
{
"type": "",
"isPattern": "false",
"id": ""
}
],
"updateAction": "DELETE"
}
This is the returned query:
{
"contextElement": {
"type": "",
"isPattern": "false",
"id": "",
"attributes": [
{
"name": "temp",
"type": "integer",
"value": "15"
},
{
"name": "pressure",
"type": "integer",
"value": "720"
}
]
},
"statusCode": {
"code": "200",
"reasonPhrase": "OK"
}
}
There is a known bug (now fixed) in Orion that seems to be causing your issue. Basically Orion interprets the final "/" at the end of an URL as an empty element.
For example (as documented in the issue):
v1/contextEntityTypes queries for all types, while
v1/contextEntityTypes/ queries only for the empty type
In your particular case, something similar happens with some REST operations. If you do a GET /v1/contextEntities you will see all entities, including the empty-id one. You can query that particular entity with GET /v1/contextEntity/ (note the final "/").
And then, the DELETE method doesn't seem to use the same pattern. So if you do DELETE /v1/contextEntity/ You get a No context element found.
So, basically, this is another manifestation of a known bug.
I have a very complex JSON and a snippet of it is below:
var designerJSON=
{
"nodes":
[
{
"NodeDefinition": {
"name": "Start",
"thumbnail": "Start.png",
"icon": "Start.png",
"info": "Entry point ",
"help": "Start point in your workflow.",
"workflow ": "Start",
"category": "Basic",
"ui": [
{
"label": "Entry point",
"category": "Help",
"componet": "label",
"type": "label"
}
]
},
"States": [
{
"start": "node1"
}
]
},.......
]
}
I would like to get the value of "start" in States. But I am stuck in the first step of entering into JSON. When I try
console.log(designerJSON["nodes"]);
I am getting Undefined.
I want the value of start. Wich is designerJSON["nodes"]["States"]["start"].
Can you help.
Thanks in advance
designerJSON["nodes"]["States"]["start"] won't do it.
designerJSON["nodes"] is a list, as is States, so you need to access individual items by index (or iteration).
In the example you have given you need to use this:
designerJSON['nodes'][0]['States'][0]['start']
or this (cleaner IMO):
designerJSON.nodes[0].States[0].start
You have an array in JSON.
instead of
designerJSON["nodes"]["States"]["start"]
use
designerJSON["nodes"][0]["States"][0]["start"]
ps. pay attention on how code is formatted in the topic.
pps. using brackets for accessing properties in js is "bad style" (due to js hint recommendations). better access those via dot, e.g:
designerJSON.nodes[0].States[0].start