fix:added requester field in DiagnosticReportRetrieveSpec

[nandkishorr]

Proposed Changes

• Added SR requester field in the DiagnosticReportRetrieveSpec

Merge Checklist

• Tests added/fixed
• Update docs in /docs
• Linting Complete
• Any other necessary step

Only PR's with test cases included and passing lint and test pipelines will be reviewed

@ohcnetwork/care-backend-maintainers @ohcnetwork/care-backend-admins

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features
  • Diagnostic reports now include requester details when a service request is associated, showing who requested the report.
  • If no requester is associated, reports remain unchanged (requester field will be empty).
  • Provides additional context for clinicians and downstream workflows.
  • Visible wherever diagnostic reports are viewed; no changes to existing privacy or access controls.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Added a nullable requester field to DiagnosticReportRetrieveSpec and updated serialization to populate it from a related service_request. Also imported model_from_cache and UserSpec to resolve the requester lazily.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Diagnostic Report Spec Enhancement care/emr/resources/diagnostic_report/spec.py	Added public field requester: dict | None to DiagnosticReportRetrieveSpec. Imported model_from_cache from care.emr.resources.base and UserSpec from care.emr.resources.user.spec. Serialization now sets mapping["requester"] via model_from_cache(UserSpec, id=obj.service_request.requester_id) when a service_request exists.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (2 warnings)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description check	⚠️ Warning	The description is missing critical sections including 'Associated Issue' link and detailed explanation of the change, making it incomplete.	Add the 'Associated Issue' section with a link and explanation of how this change addresses the issue. Provide more context about why the requester field was needed.
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	You can run @coderabbitai generate docstrings to improve docstring coverage.

✅ Passed checks (1 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: adding a requester field to DiagnosticReportRetrieveSpec, though it could be slightly more polished.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch nandkishorr/fix/diagnostic_report_retrieve_spec

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: Repository UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f5d7d75 and 9dacc1d.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• care/emr/resources/diagnostic_report/spec.py

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• care/emr/resources/diagnostic_report/spec.py

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)

• GitHub Check: Test / Test
• GitHub Check: Analyze (python)

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 2

Fix all issues with AI Agents 🤖

In @care/emr/resources/diagnostic_report/spec.py:
- Around line 82-85: The assignment to mapping["requester"] is creating a
one-element tuple because of the trailing comma; change the assignment so it
stores the dict returned by model_from_cache(UserSpec,
id=obj.service_request.requester_id) directly (remove the trailing comma) so
mapping["requester"] becomes the expected dict | None instead of a tuple.
- Around line 82-85: The code sets mapping["requester"] from
obj.service_request.requester_id without guarding against a null requester_id;
update the conditional to verify both that obj.service_request exists and that
obj.service_request.requester_id is truthy (e.g., if obj.service_request and
obj.service_request.requester_id:) before assigning mapping["requester"] with
model_from_cache(UserSpec, id=...), matching the guard pattern used in
service_request/spec.py and medication/request/spec.py.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: Repository UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 649f9cf and f5d7d75.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• care/emr/resources/diagnostic_report/spec.py

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (1)

**/*.py

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (.cursorrules)

**/*.py: Prioritize readability and maintainability; follow Django's coding style guide (PEP 8 compliance).
Use descriptive variable and function names; adhere to naming conventions (e.g., lowercase with underscores for functions and variables).

Files:

• care/emr/resources/diagnostic_report/spec.py

🧬 Code graph analysis (1)

care/emr/resources/diagnostic_report/spec.py (2)

care/emr/resources/base.py (2)

• EMRResource (13-168)
• model_from_cache (232-275)

care/emr/resources/user/spec.py (1)

• UserSpec (124-138)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: Test / Test

🔇 Additional comments (2)

care/emr/resources/diagnostic_report/spec.py (2)

9-9: LGTM on the imports.

The addition of model_from_cache and UserSpec imports are necessary and correctly used in the serialization logic below.

Also applies to: 16-16

---

69-69: Field definition looks good.

The requester field follows the same pattern as created_by and updated_by, which is consistent and appropriate.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 60.00000% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 74.46%. Comparing base (649f9cf) to head (9dacc1d).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
care/emr/resources/diagnostic_report/spec.py	60.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3443      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    74.46%   74.46%   -0.01%     
===========================================
  Files          449      449              
  Lines        20701    20705       +4     
  Branches      2152     2153       +1     
===========================================
+ Hits         15416    15418       +2     
- Misses        4822     4824       +2     
  Partials       463      463              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.