Skip to content

Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification #70

Open
Open
Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification#70
Milestone
1.1.0

Description

@serefarikan
serefarikan
opened on Aug 29, 2018

Even though @wolandscat has pointed out that use of OBJECT_VERSION_IDs for COMPOSITION.uid values does not imply any versioning semantics as per the specifications, at least one vendor and probably more (according to slack comments) use meaningful uid values for COMPOSITIONs.

The discussion on slack did not produce an answer to the following question: "do we consider this non-standard, yet widely(?) applied practice for rest specifications".

If the answer to the above question is yes, then we need to clarify what the REST endpoint should do when

  • a system id that is different than the REST endpoint's is provided as in xyz::some_other_system::1
  • a version that is not equal to 1 as in xyz::rest_implementing_system::3
    Because in case of meaningful COMPOSION.uid s the above conditions imply imports rather than creating new compositions.

if the answer to the above question is no, there are still decisions to be made.

If the REST back end simply ignores the whole (OBJECT_VERSION_ID) uid or components of it, does this constitute a problem REST wise, since we're creating a resource that is different than the one provided (uid dropped)? If we're determining the identifier of the resource (via setting its uid), should not this be a PUT? RESTful design assumes POST will create the resource identifier as far as I remember

Also, @bjornna made a point regarding client side generation of UIDs which is required to commit a folder and compositions together where the folder has uids of compositions referenced. I am not sure if this is possible with the current REST api, but assuming this will be introduced later, this requirement conflicts with the behaviour in which server silently drops incoming uid values.

I tried to come up with a set of rules that satisfy all conditions above and failed, even when we assume uid has no versioning semantics. Suggestions are welcome.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions

      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
       blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification · Issue #70 · openEHR/specifications-ITS-REST · GitHub
      Skip to content
      Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification #70
      Open
      Open
      Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification#70
      Milestone
      1.1.0
      Description
      @serefarikan
      serefarikan
      opened on Aug 29, 2018
      Even though @wolandscat has pointed out that use of OBJECT_VERSION_IDs for COMPOSITION.uid values does not imply any versioning semantics as per the specifications, at least one vendor and probably more (according to slack comments) use meaningful uid values for COMPOSITIONs.
      The discussion on slack did not produce an answer to the following question: "do we consider this non-standard, yet widely(?) applied practice for rest specifications".
      If the answer to the above question is yes, then we need to clarify what the REST endpoint should do when
      • a system id that is different than the REST endpoint's is provided as in xyz::some_other_system::1
      • a version that is not equal to 1 as in xyz::rest_implementing_system::3
        
Because in case of meaningful COMPOSION.uid s the above conditions imply imports rather than creating new compositions.
      if the answer to the above question is no, there are still decisions to be made.
      If the REST back end simply ignores the whole (OBJECT_VERSION_ID) uid or components of it, does this constitute a problem REST wise, since we're creating a resource that is different than the one provided (uid dropped)? If we're determining the identifier of the resource (via setting its uid), should not this be a PUT? RESTful design assumes POST will create the resource identifier as far as I remember
      Also, @bjornna made a point regarding client side generation of UIDs which is required to commit a folder and compositions together where the folder has uids of compositions referenced. I am not sure if this is possible with the current REST api, but assuming this will be introduced later, this requirement conflicts with the behaviour in which server silently drops incoming uid values.
      I tried to come up with a set of rules that satisfy all conditions above and failed, even when we assume uid has no versioning semantics. Suggestions are welcome.
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        No labels
        No labels
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        No projects
          Milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification · Issue #70 · openEHR/specifications-ITS-REST · GitHub
          Skip to content
          Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification #70
          Open
          Open
          Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification#70
          Milestone
          1.1.0
          Description
          @serefarikan
          serefarikan
          opened on Aug 29, 2018
          Even though @wolandscat has pointed out that use of OBJECT_VERSION_IDs for COMPOSITION.uid values does not imply any versioning semantics as per the specifications, at least one vendor and probably more (according to slack comments) use meaningful uid values for COMPOSITIONs.
          The discussion on slack did not produce an answer to the following question: "do we consider this non-standard, yet widely(?) applied practice for rest specifications".
          If the answer to the above question is yes, then we need to clarify what the REST endpoint should do when
          • a system id that is different than the REST endpoint's is provided as in xyz::some_other_system::1
          • a version that is not equal to 1 as in xyz::rest_implementing_system::3
            
Because in case of meaningful COMPOSION.uid s the above conditions imply imports rather than creating new compositions.
          if the answer to the above question is no, there are still decisions to be made.
          If the REST back end simply ignores the whole (OBJECT_VERSION_ID) uid or components of it, does this constitute a problem REST wise, since we're creating a resource that is different than the one provided (uid dropped)? If we're determining the identifier of the resource (via setting its uid), should not this be a PUT? RESTful design assumes POST will create the resource identifier as far as I remember
          Also, @bjornna made a point regarding client side generation of UIDs which is required to commit a folder and compositions together where the folder has uids of compositions referenced. I am not sure if this is possible with the current REST api, but assuming this will be introduced later, this requirement conflicts with the behaviour in which server silently drops incoming uid values.
          I tried to come up with a set of rules that satisfy all conditions above and failed, even when we assume uid has no versioning semantics. Suggestions are welcome.
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            No labels
            No labels
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            No projects
              Milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification · Issue #70 · openEHR/specifications-ITS-REST · GitHub
              Skip to content
              Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification #70
              Open
              Open
              Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification#70
              Milestone
              1.1.0
              Description
              @serefarikan
              serefarikan
              opened on Aug 29, 2018
              Even though @wolandscat has pointed out that use of OBJECT_VERSION_IDs for COMPOSITION.uid values does not imply any versioning semantics as per the specifications, at least one vendor and probably more (according to slack comments) use meaningful uid values for COMPOSITIONs.
              The discussion on slack did not produce an answer to the following question: "do we consider this non-standard, yet widely(?) applied practice for rest specifications".
              If the answer to the above question is yes, then we need to clarify what the REST endpoint should do when
              • a system id that is different than the REST endpoint's is provided as in xyz::some_other_system::1
              • a version that is not equal to 1 as in xyz::rest_implementing_system::3
                
Because in case of meaningful COMPOSION.uid s the above conditions imply imports rather than creating new compositions.
              if the answer to the above question is no, there are still decisions to be made.
              If the REST back end simply ignores the whole (OBJECT_VERSION_ID) uid or components of it, does this constitute a problem REST wise, since we're creating a resource that is different than the one provided (uid dropped)? If we're determining the identifier of the resource (via setting its uid), should not this be a PUT? RESTful design assumes POST will create the resource identifier as far as I remember
              Also, @bjornna made a point regarding client side generation of UIDs which is required to commit a folder and compositions together where the folder has uids of compositions referenced. I am not sure if this is possible with the current REST api, but assuming this will be introduced later, this requirement conflicts with the behaviour in which server silently drops incoming uid values.
              I tried to come up with a set of rules that satisfy all conditions above and failed, even when we assume uid has no versioning semantics. Suggestions are welcome.
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                No labels
                No labels
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                No projects
                  Milestone
                  Relationships
                  None yet
                  Development
                  No branches or pull requests
                  Issue actions
                  
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification · Issue #70 · openEHR/specifications-ITS-REST · GitHub
                  Skip to content
                  Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification #70
                  Open
                  Open
                  Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification#70
                  Milestone
                  1.1.0
                  Description
                  @serefarikan
                  serefarikan
                  opened on Aug 29, 2018
                  Even though @wolandscat has pointed out that use of OBJECT_VERSION_IDs for COMPOSITION.uid values does not imply any versioning semantics as per the specifications, at least one vendor and probably more (according to slack comments) use meaningful uid values for COMPOSITIONs.
                  The discussion on slack did not produce an answer to the following question: "do we consider this non-standard, yet widely(?) applied practice for rest specifications".
                  If the answer to the above question is yes, then we need to clarify what the REST endpoint should do when
                  • a system id that is different than the REST endpoint's is provided as in xyz::some_other_system::1
                  • a version that is not equal to 1 as in xyz::rest_implementing_system::3
                    
Because in case of meaningful COMPOSION.uid s the above conditions imply imports rather than creating new compositions.
                  if the answer to the above question is no, there are still decisions to be made.
                  If the REST back end simply ignores the whole (OBJECT_VERSION_ID) uid or components of it, does this constitute a problem REST wise, since we're creating a resource that is different than the one provided (uid dropped)? If we're determining the identifier of the resource (via setting its uid), should not this be a PUT? RESTful design assumes POST will create the resource identifier as far as I remember
                  Also, @bjornna made a point regarding client side generation of UIDs which is required to commit a folder and compositions together where the folder has uids of compositions referenced. I am not sure if this is possible with the current REST api, but assuming this will be introduced later, this requirement conflicts with the behaviour in which server silently drops incoming uid values.
                  I tried to come up with a set of rules that satisfy all conditions above and failed, even when we assume uid has no versioning semantics. Suggestions are welcome.
                  Metadata
                  Metadata
                  Assignees
                  No one assigned
                    Labels
                    No labels
                    No labels
                    Type
                    No type
                    Projects
                    No projects
                      Milestone
                      Relationships
                      None yet
                      Development
                      No branches or pull requests
                      Issue actions
                      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification · Issue #70 · openEHR/specifications-ITS-REST · GitHub
                      Skip to content
                      Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification #70
                      Open
                      Open
                      Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification#70
                      Milestone
                      1.1.0
                      Description
                      @serefarikan
                      serefarikan
                      opened on Aug 29, 2018
                      Even though @wolandscat has pointed out that use of OBJECT_VERSION_IDs for COMPOSITION.uid values does not imply any versioning semantics as per the specifications, at least one vendor and probably more (according to slack comments) use meaningful uid values for COMPOSITIONs.
                      The discussion on slack did not produce an answer to the following question: "do we consider this non-standard, yet widely(?) applied practice for rest specifications".
                      If the answer to the above question is yes, then we need to clarify what the REST endpoint should do when
                      • a system id that is different than the REST endpoint's is provided as in xyz::some_other_system::1
                      • a version that is not equal to 1 as in xyz::rest_implementing_system::3
                        
Because in case of meaningful COMPOSION.uid s the above conditions imply imports rather than creating new compositions.
                      if the answer to the above question is no, there are still decisions to be made.
                      If the REST back end simply ignores the whole (OBJECT_VERSION_ID) uid or components of it, does this constitute a problem REST wise, since we're creating a resource that is different than the one provided (uid dropped)? If we're determining the identifier of the resource (via setting its uid), should not this be a PUT? RESTful design assumes POST will create the resource identifier as far as I remember
                      Also, @bjornna made a point regarding client side generation of UIDs which is required to commit a folder and compositions together where the folder has uids of compositions referenced. I am not sure if this is possible with the current REST api, but assuming this will be introduced later, this requirement conflicts with the behaviour in which server silently drops incoming uid values.
                      I tried to come up with a set of rules that satisfy all conditions above and failed, even when we assume uid has no versioning semantics. Suggestions are welcome.
                      Metadata
                      Metadata
                      Assignees
                      No one assigned
                        Labels
                        No labels
                        No labels
                        Type
                        No type
                        Projects
                        No projects
                          Milestone
                          Relationships
                          None yet
                          Development
                          No branches or pull requests
                          Issue actions
                          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification · Issue #70 · openEHR/specifications-ITS-REST · GitHub
                          Skip to content
                          Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification #70
                          Open
                          Open
                          Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification#70
                          Milestone
                          1.1.0
                          Description
                          @serefarikan
                          serefarikan
                          opened on Aug 29, 2018
                          Even though @wolandscat has pointed out that use of OBJECT_VERSION_IDs for COMPOSITION.uid values does not imply any versioning semantics as per the specifications, at least one vendor and probably more (according to slack comments) use meaningful uid values for COMPOSITIONs.
                          The discussion on slack did not produce an answer to the following question: "do we consider this non-standard, yet widely(?) applied practice for rest specifications".
                          If the answer to the above question is yes, then we need to clarify what the REST endpoint should do when
                          • a system id that is different than the REST endpoint's is provided as in xyz::some_other_system::1
                          • a version that is not equal to 1 as in xyz::rest_implementing_system::3
                            
Because in case of meaningful COMPOSION.uid s the above conditions imply imports rather than creating new compositions.
                          if the answer to the above question is no, there are still decisions to be made.
                          If the REST back end simply ignores the whole (OBJECT_VERSION_ID) uid or components of it, does this constitute a problem REST wise, since we're creating a resource that is different than the one provided (uid dropped)? If we're determining the identifier of the resource (via setting its uid), should not this be a PUT? RESTful design assumes POST will create the resource identifier as far as I remember
                          Also, @bjornna made a point regarding client side generation of UIDs which is required to commit a folder and compositions together where the folder has uids of compositions referenced. I am not sure if this is possible with the current REST api, but assuming this will be introduced later, this requirement conflicts with the behaviour in which server silently drops incoming uid values.
                          I tried to come up with a set of rules that satisfy all conditions above and failed, even when we assume uid has no versioning semantics. Suggestions are welcome.
                          Metadata
                          Metadata
                          Assignees
                          No one assigned
                            Labels
                            No labels
                            No labels
                            Type
                            No type
                            Projects
                            No projects
                              Milestone
                              Relationships
                              None yet
                              Development
                              No branches or pull requests
                              Issue actions
                              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site
(function() {
var enabled = true;
function applyDarkMode() {
if (!enabled) return;
// Create style element if it doesn't exist
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (!style) {
style = document.createElement('style');
style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';
document.head.appendChild(style);
}
// Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video
style.textContent = '
/* Invert everything except media */
html {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #1a1a2e !important;
}
/* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */
img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
}
/* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */
.no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,
[data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"],
.ace_editor, .ace_editor *,
.CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,
.monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,
.markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,
.highlight, .highlight *,
pre code, pre code * {
filter: none !important;
}
/* Fix common UI elements */
.modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #2d2d44 !important;
border-color: #444 !important;
}
/* Scrollbars */
::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }
/* Selection */
::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
';
}
function removeDarkMode() {
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (style) style.remove();
}
// Toggle with Alt+Shift+D
document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {
if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {
e.preventDefault();
enabled = !enabled;
if (enabled) {
applyDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');
} else {
removeDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');
}
}
});
// Apply on load
applyDarkMode();
// Re-apply on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {
applyDarkMode();
}
});
observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();
Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification · Issue #70 · openEHR/specifications-ITS-REST · GitHub
                              Skip to content
                              Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification #70
                              Open
                              Open
                              Behaviour for use of composition uid's in POST requests needs clarification#70
                              Milestone
                              1.1.0
                              Description
                              @serefarikan
                              serefarikan
                              opened on Aug 29, 2018
                              Even though @wolandscat has pointed out that use of OBJECT_VERSION_IDs for COMPOSITION.uid values does not imply any versioning semantics as per the specifications, at least one vendor and probably more (according to slack comments) use meaningful uid values for COMPOSITIONs.
                              The discussion on slack did not produce an answer to the following question: "do we consider this non-standard, yet widely(?) applied practice for rest specifications".
                              If the answer to the above question is yes, then we need to clarify what the REST endpoint should do when
                              • a system id that is different than the REST endpoint's is provided as in xyz::some_other_system::1
                              • a version that is not equal to 1 as in xyz::rest_implementing_system::3
                                
Because in case of meaningful COMPOSION.uid s the above conditions imply imports rather than creating new compositions.
                              if the answer to the above question is no, there are still decisions to be made.
                              If the REST back end simply ignores the whole (OBJECT_VERSION_ID) uid or components of it, does this constitute a problem REST wise, since we're creating a resource that is different than the one provided (uid dropped)? If we're determining the identifier of the resource (via setting its uid), should not this be a PUT? RESTful design assumes POST will create the resource identifier as far as I remember
                              Also, @bjornna made a point regarding client side generation of UIDs which is required to commit a folder and compositions together where the folder has uids of compositions referenced. I am not sure if this is possible with the current REST api, but assuming this will be introduced later, this requirement conflicts with the behaviour in which server silently drops incoming uid values.
                              I tried to come up with a set of rules that satisfy all conditions above and failed, even when we assume uid has no versioning semantics. Suggestions are welcome.
                              Metadata
                              Metadata
                              Assignees
                              No one assigned
                                Labels
                                No labels
                                No labels
                                Type
                                No type
                                Projects
                                No projects
                                  Milestone
                                  Relationships
                                  None yet
                                  Development
                                  No branches or pull requests
                                  Issue actions