feat(imaging): create basic imaging module #2250
Conversation
… profile dropdown
…nslation key more clearly fix HospitalRun#2236
…/AlexTan331/hospitalrun-frontend into display-user-in-profile-dropdown
add permissions to request new imaging and view all imagings; add links to sidebar and navbar for creating new imaging and viewing imagings
|
|
|
This pull request is being automatically deployed with Vercel (learn more). 🔍 Inspect: https://vercel.com/hospitalrun/hospitalrun-frontend/82kmapk97 |
matteovivona
added
the
in progress
AlexTan331
changed the title
matteovivona
added
the
🚀enhancement
src/HospitalRun.tsx
Outdated
| @@ -53,6 +54,7 @@ const HospitalRun = () => { | |||
| <Route path="/labs" component={Labs} /> | |||
| <Route path="/incidents" component={Incidents} /> | |||
| <Route path="/settings" component={Settings} /> | |||
| <Route path="/imagings" component={Imagings} /> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's just go with /imaging for the route name
| useEffect(() => { | ||
| setSearchFilter('all' as ImagingFilter) | ||
| }, []) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is this useEffect needed? it seems like it might not be since we initialize the state to be all
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This method is to display all the imaging with any status (requested, canceled, and completed). And this method can be used for searching imaging with specific status in the future.
src/imagings/ViewImagings.tsx
Outdated
| label: t('imagings.imaging.requestedBy'), | ||
| key: 'requestedBy', | ||
| formatter: (row) => extractUsername(row.requestedBy), | ||
| }, // need to be formated later |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
by the comment, there appears like there may be some work left? if not, remove comment.
| const store = mockStore({ | ||
| title: '', | ||
| user: { permissions: [Permissions.ViewImagings, Permissions.RequestLab] }, | ||
| imagings: { imagings: [] }, | ||
| } as any) | ||
| titleSpy = jest.spyOn(titleUtil, 'default') | ||
| jest.spyOn(ImagingRepository, 'findAll').mockResolvedValue([]) | ||
| await act(async () => { | ||
| await mount( | ||
| <Provider store={store}> | ||
| <Router history={createMemoryHistory()}> | ||
| <ViewImagings /> | ||
| </Router> | ||
| </Provider>, | ||
| ) | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lately, we have been putting this kind of setup in a setup function. I think we should continue this pattern since it makes it easy to make sure each test is not dependent on a previous test.
Each describe can share the setup function. i.e. one setup function for the whole test suite.
| wrapper = mount( | ||
| <Provider store={store}> | ||
| <Router history={history}> | ||
| <NewImagingRequest /> | ||
| </Router> | ||
| </Provider>, | ||
| ) | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we can use a setup function here as well.
It would like something like:
const setup = () => {
const store = mockStore({ title: '', imaging: { status: 'loading', error: {} } } as any)
history.push('/imagings/new')
wrapper = mount(
<Provider store={store}>
<Router history={history}>
<NewImagingRequest />
</Router>
</Provider>,
)
return { wrapper: wrapper as ReactWrapper, history, store }
}This will eliminate the need for global variables in this file.
|
@AlexTan331 this is awesome work! let me know if you have any questions about getting the tests passing or any of the code review feedback. |
…ace route name to 'imaging' fix HospitalRun#2242
Fixes #2242
Changes proposed in this pull request:
No new dependency added
Side note: