Sep 2016 HL7 Connectathon: Patch Track

Track Conclusion slides from the Sep 2016 WGM Connectathon

Transcript

1. Patch
2. Update PUT https://.../MedicationStatement/123123123 Content-Type: application/fhir+json Body: { "resourceType": “MedicationStatement”, “id”: “123123123” “meta”: {…} "patient": { "reference": "Patient/3404017" }, "status": “completed", … }
3. Patch • RFCs: • HTTP PATCH method: https://tools.ietf.org/html/ rfc5789 • JSON Patch: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6902 • XML Patch: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5261
4. Patch PATCH https://.../MedicationStatement/123123123 Content-Type: application/json-patch+json Body: [{ "op": "replace", "path": "/status", "value": "completed" }]
5. Participants • 6 Clients • 4 Servers
6. Results
7. Issues • Narrative: If you update a field in the narrative, do you need to replace the narrative as well? Should servers attempt to do this for them OR fail if they detect this? • XML Client: Couldn’t find an open source library (java) to generate the patch between two XML Documents • Conformance: How should a server specify it supports XML vs JSON patch? • Conformance: How should a server specify it supports conditional Patch? • Similar to PUT: Prefer header to indicate preference on if the resource should be returned in the response • XML Namespaces are hard