search

ucum-org / ucum

https://ucum.org
Other
50 stars 10 forks source link

Extend Ucum Functional Tests with test for '{annotation}/{annotation}' #157

Open timbrisc opened 3 years ago

timbrisc commented 3 years ago

Issue migrated from trac ticket # 5776

component: support material | priority: minor

2020-12-08 13:09:55: alexander@fire.ly created the issue

Dear all,

in the Ucum Functional Tests there exists some tests to check the support for annotations. Some tests, like case id 1-116, check the combination of annotations. However, one of the cases that is missing, as far as I can see, is a test for {annotation}/{annotation}'.

I stumbled over this while maintaining a .NET Implementation of a UCUM parser (https://github.com/FirelyTeam/Fhir.Metrics). We received a bug report that the unit '{reads}/{base}' could not be parsed. The suggestion of this ticket would be to add a corresponding test case. While I'm sure that all official implementations are able to correctly deduce 1/1 as a unit, it would be good to check this behaviour across all implementations.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this issue.

Best, Alexander Zautke

timbrisc commented 3 years ago

2021-01-15 19:06:24: mitchbre@regenstrief.org changed status from new to assigned

timbrisc commented 3 years ago

2021-01-15 19:06:24: mitchbre@regenstrief.org set owner to cjmcdonald

timbrisc commented 3 years ago

2021-02-17 17:50:55: mitchbre@regenstrief.org commented

Note from Clem

Id some one reallu have unit that was { Something/{Something} would be helpful to know what the LOINC code was and the actual unit string. Granted the system should accept such a string {}/{}, But suspect the reall issues was due to some other mis representation of the units. Sp it is count. If expressed as Pack yeard would be (#).years

linforestzhang commented 8 months ago

{reads/base} ?