inferno-framework / davinci-pas-test-kit

Inferno Test Kit for the Da Vinci Prior Authorization Support IG

Apache License 2.0

0 stars 0 forks source link

Documentation Updates #1

Closed karlnaden closed 4 months ago

karlnaden commented 4 months ago

Summary

Update documentation and test descriptions based on feedback from ONC, including

splitting out suite descriptions into separate markdown files that can be linked to from test descriptions and other documentation
add additional description to user input validation tests
clarify the meaning of the server "status check" tests -> now claim response decision validation, and move them into the submit group rather than their own group. Also made them skip and optional until actually implemented.
Separate out the stub notification test.

Testing Guidance

note that some links point explicitly to a file that doesn't yet exist in the main brach, so you will need to add the branch name to the url (after /tree/ -> /tree/suite_description_breakouts/) for the link to work from descriptions in the running test kit.

karlnaden commented 4 months ago

One remaining question. Scott had a suggestion to update the description of the $submit and $inquiry operations. My note indicates "expand description of operations -> both described in the IG as "submit a claim for..."". I think our descriptions seem pretty good, at least in the client tests:

submit: submits a claim using the $submit operation
inquiry: inquires about a pended claim using the $inquire operation

so I took the approach of updating the server to follow those names. Does this sound right @arscan - did you think there was something different that Scott wanted here?

arscan commented 4 months ago

so I took the approach of updating the server to follow those names. Does this sound right @arscan - did you think there was something different that Scott wanted here?

I think this is ok. The issue is that we tend to want to use very precise language from the spec so everyone knows what we are formally testing. The formal language here is... well... not great... because "submit" is used to mean 2 different things in the 2 operations. So either we update this to use not-great language that clearly maps to the operation names/titles, or we change the language on our side to 'make more sense'. Maybe we can open a ticket for them to not use 'submit' in the $inquire operation definition? Or something like that?

karlnaden commented 4 months ago

so I took the approach of updating the server to follow those names. Does this sound right @arscan - did you think there was something different that Scott wanted here?

I think this is ok. The issue is that we tend to want to use very precise language from the spec so everyone knows what we are formally testing. The formal language here is... well... not great... because "submit" is used to mean 2 different things in the 2 operations. So either we update this to use not-great language that clearly maps to the operation names/titles, or we change the language on our side to 'make more sense'. Maybe we can open a ticket for them to not use 'submit' in the $inquire operation definition? Or something like that?

Good idea. Submitted FHIR-45391. Also created FHIR-45393 around the inquire vs inquiry issue, which has been bothering me.

arscan commented 4 months ago

Good idea. Submitted FHIR-45391. Also created FHIR-45393 around the inquire vs inquiry issue, which has been bothering me.

I think having it be more active in its phrasing with the primary verb being up-front would be clearest.... "Inquire about the status of a submitted claim" or something. But coming up with concise and clear language here is very hard (I sympathize with IG devs!)

karlnaden commented 4 months ago

But coming up with concise and clear language here is very hard (I sympathize with IG devs!)

I do too!