Opened 3 years ago
Last modified 3 years ago
#1349 closed enhancement
Updates to registration of specimen handled by external lab — at Version 6
Reported by: | Nicklas Nordborg | Owned by: | Nicklas Nordborg |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | Reggie v4.33.5 |
Component: | net.sf.basedb.reggie | Keywords: | |
Cc: |
Description (last modified by )
See #1347 and #1295 for background.
More changes that are needed before we can implement registration from case.
- Qiacube position: is now specified like
1:A
. We need to implement support for this format. Most likely the range is1-6
andA-B
but this need to be confirmed.
- Qiacube run number: is now specified as a plate identifier (eg
12-345678
). We should be able to use this together with the date information to be able to assign a run number.
- RIN: The RNA section now has a RIN value. We need to create the proper RNAQC item for this. There is no plate information so we need to check that this doesn't affect other things. Most importantly we need to make sure that the algorithm for finding RNAQC(last) works.
- More... ?
UPDATE We decided that it might be easier to change the order in which things are registered. The data import from the JSON file should be done before the referral form registration. This is more similar to what can already be done today when the lab receives a specimen but there is a delay before the referral form is registered. Downstream wizards should already work. One exception is the Genotype QC wizard that require patient information, but this case should already be supported in the sense that this wizard will wait until the referral form has been registered.
Another exception might be the case where two specimen tubes are sent with a single referral form. It may happen that data for one specimen is transferred some time before the second one. If the referral for is registered after we got data for the first specimen we must make sure that the data import for the second specimen is connected correctly (this is a case that is not supported today).
NOTE! This means that we don't need the FutureSpecimen item type any longer.
Change History (6)
comment:1 by , 3 years ago
comment:5 by , 3 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|---|
Status: | new → accepted |
comment:6 by , 3 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
In 6480: