SolDevelo Sp. z o.o. [LLC] / www.soldevelo.com
Al. Zwycięstwa 96/98, 81-451, Gdynia, Poland
Phone: +48 58 782 45 40 / Fax: +48 58 782 45 41
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenLMIS Dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openlmis-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to openlm...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openlmis-dev/bfb5f5d2-3c68-4580-81c6-eaccfe8e1989%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Paweł Gesek
Technical Project Manager
pge...@soldevelo.com / +48 690 020 875
Extending the dto sound more reasonable. Is date submitted part of the requisition or are we getting it from the status list? Holding date submitted redundantly in the requisition object might be a good way to improve performance, since we would avoid joining with the status change table. We are already doing it with created date.I also don't think we would want the full facility representation in the basic dto - I think we should keep it fairly minimal.
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:46 PM, <jkon...@soldevelo.com> wrote:
Hi all,While measuring our recent performance improvements, I discovered two additional endpoints which work very slowly:/api/requisitionsForApproval/api/requisitionsForConvertThey use a full requisition dto and getting each of these takes about 40 seconds for EM program in Malawi. Opening "Approve" page with 17 requisitions took over 12 minutes on our dev server. We can easily improve this by returning BasicRequisitionDto like we did in requisition search, but we are missing some fields there: date submitted (which is currently taken from the list of requisition statuses) and geographic zone of the facility.It seems to me that we have two options here:- Add a list of requisition statuses and full facility representation to the BasicRequisitionDto- Create dateSubmitted and geographicZone fields in that dto and populate them in dto builderDoes making that change sound reasonable? Which do you think would be better solution?Best Regards,Jakub
SolDevelo Sp. z o.o. [LLC] / www.soldevelo.com
Al. Zwycięstwa 96/98, 81-451, Gdynia, Poland
Phone: +48 58 782 45 40 / Fax: +48 58 782 45 41
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenLMIS Dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openlmis-dev...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to openlm...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openlmis-dev/bfb5f5d2-3c68-4580-81c6-eaccfe8e1989%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Hi Jakub,
It looks like a pull request was merged today for this change:
https://github.com/OpenLMIS/openlmis-requisition/pull/36
Please let us know what the final outcome was for the design/decision that was discussed on this thread.
-Brandon
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openlmis-dev/067ea12d-d20c-4726-bcf2-f43487dc51a8%40googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to openl...@googlegroups.com.