feat: ✨ update algorithm logic to include regex in parentheses #159
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Co-authored-by: Luke W. Johnston <lwjohnst86@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Signe Kirk Brødbæk <40836345+signekb@users.noreply.github.com>
signekb
changed the title
lwjohnst86
approved these changes
Dec 18, 2024
lwjohnst86
deleted the
feat/update-algorithm-logic-for-regex-in-parentheses
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
This PR updates the logic in
get_algorithm_logic()to include regex in parentheses.We'll need for e.g., podiatrist services:
(speciale =~ '^54') AND (barnmak != 0).To test the updated regex, I added an argument to
get_algorithm_logicwith a default ofalgorithm. This enables me to add atest_algorithm_logicobject instead of the algorithm we use, so the tests won't start failing if/when the algorithm is updated.I don't think this is good practice (adding an arg mainly just for test purposes), but I wanted to test the logic formally now that it's a bit more complex. Let me know if there's a better way to do this!