Validation Results for IHE_ITI_MHD

Generated Fri May 17 14:29:34 UTC 2024, FHIR version 4.0.1 for ihe.iti.mhd#4.2.2 (canonical = https://profiles.ihe.net/ITI/MHD (history)). See Full QA Report

Quality Checks
Publisher Version:IG Publisher Version: v1.6.7
Publication Code:n/a . PackageId = ihe.iti.mhd, Canonical = https://profiles.ihe.net/ITI/MHD
Realm Check for n/a:
  • n/a
Publication Request:
package-idihe.iti.mhd
version4.2.2
pathhttps://profiles.ihe.net/ITI/MHD/4.2.2
Pub-Modemilestone
statustrial-use
Release-LabelTrial-Implementation
sequencePublication
descTrial Implementation - Quality improvements.
descmd

Version 4.2.2

  • Quality improvements
  • List-SourceId bad cast to Token by @JohnMoehrke in https://github.com/IHE/ITI.MHD/pull/217
  • fix possible identifier value invariant bug by @JohnMoehrke in https://github.com/IHE/ITI.MHD/pull/215
  • Update documentReference.fsh by @JohnMoehrke in https://github.com/IHE/ITI.MHD/pull/218
  • IG Builder warnings ignored by @JohnMoehrke in https://github.com/IHE/ITI.MHD/pull/219
  • build cleaning by @JohnMoehrke in https://github.com/IHE/ITI.MHD/pull/225
  • mapping had an extra column due to a second string by @JohnMoehrke in https://github.com/IHE/ITI.MHD/pull/228
  • reference to PCC section should use sIPS extract by @JohnMoehrke in https://github.com/IHE/ITI.MHD/pull/224
  • open the slicing on audit entity by @JohnMoehrke in https://github.com/IHE/ITI.MHD/pull/221
  • Profiling of Bundle with PATCH #222 by @oliveregger in https://github.com/IHE/ITI.MHD/pull/227
  • Updates to testplan to align with Gazelle and identify improvements to the tests
changesa_issues.html
No Messages found - all good
Supressed Messages:31 Suppressed Issues
Dependency Checks:
PackageVersionFHIRCanonicalWeb BaseComment
.. ihe.iti.mhd4.2.2R4https://profiles.ihe.net/ITI/MHD
... hl7.terminology.r45.5.0 MR4http://terminology.hl7.orghttp://terminology.hl7.org/5.5.0
... hl7.fhir.uv.extensions.r45.1.0 MR4http://hl7.org/fhir/extensionshttp://hl7.org/fhir/extensions/5.1.0
... ihe.iti.balp1.1.3 MR4https://profiles.ihe.net/ITI/BALPhttps://profiles.ihe.net/ITI/BALP/1.1.3Matched to latest patch release (1.1.x->1.1.3)
.... hl7.terminology.r45.3.0 OR4http://terminology.hl7.orghttp://terminology.hl7.org/5.3.0Latest Release is 5.5.0
.... hl7.fhir.uv.extensions.r41.0.0 OR4http://hl7.org/fhir/extensionshttp://hl7.org/fhir/extensions/1.0.0Latest Release is 5.1.0
... ihe.formatcode.fhir1.2.0 MR4https://profiles.ihe.net/fhir/ihe.formatcode.fhirhttps://profiles.ihe.net/fhir/ihe.formatcode.fhir/1.2.0Matched to latest patch release (1.2.x->1.2.0)
.... hl7.terminology.r45.3.0 OR4http://terminology.hl7.orghttp://terminology.hl7.org/5.3.0see above. Latest Release is 5.5.0
.... hl7.fhir.uv.extensions.r41.0.0 OR4http://hl7.org/fhir/extensionshttp://hl7.org/fhir/extensions/1.0.0see above. Latest Release is 5.1.0
Templates: ihe.fhir.template#0.12.0 -> fhir.base.template#0.8.0. Tools: 0.1.0
Dependent IGs:5 guides
Global Profiles:(none declared)
Terminology Server(s):http://tx.fhir.org/r4 (details)
HTA Analysis:Non-HL7 Igs are exempt from terminology dependency analysis
R5 Dependencies:(none)
Draft Dependencies:
Modifier Extensions:(none)
Previous Version Comparison: Comparison with version 4.2.1
IPA Comparison: n/a
IPS Comparison: n/a
Summary: errors = 0, warn = 0, info = 0, broken links = 0
FilenameErrorsWarningsHints
Build Errors000

n/a Show Validation Information

Suppressed Messages (Warnings, hints, broken links)

FHIR R4 had the valueset setup wrong. We are using the proper system value

IG publisher caused warning. Grahame indicates we should ignore for now https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/179252-IG-creation/topic/New.20ConceptMap.20Warning.20--.20induced.20by.20IG.20Publisher

IHE code system used but never defined by IHE as a formal codeSystem

The concept map is from EB-Registry defined values, so we are using rfc3986. not a problem the source checking isn't done

The concept map is from a conceptual valueset from IHE, so there is no formal definition. not a problem the source checking isn't done

YES we know some examples use old codes. That old code use is not important to the example use

YES we want to point informatively at MHDS and NOT to have a dependency.

profile for MHD that is just structural and thus has no examples

some examples are underpopulated, the full population is not important for the use-case being explained

yes we know we are using non normative resources and valuesets

Errors sorted by type