Issue with OpenehrPatterns.g4 (in combined library)
Description
Attachments
Activity
Sebastian Iancu January 9, 2025 at 11:39 PM
closed this issues as it was already commented out that "The grammar looks like it is fine now following the recent changes by @Thomas Beale "

Richard Kavanagh May 8, 2023 at 10:25 PM
So for my needs, I am only really interested in what appears in actual archetypes. I was confusing the AOM definition with what does actually appear.
The grammar looks like it is fine now following the recent changes by (to detect the possible +999 for the build number)

Sebastian Garde May 8, 2023 at 6:31 AM
My take on this is that we probably should differentiate between what we actively use in CKM and what may be general possibilities - this could (and probably should) be anything supports, typically this is alpha, beta, rc, but can be anything + the correct precedence.
Thomas Beale May 7, 2023 at 1:12 PM
WHen I asked the clinical modelling editors, and CKM maintainers etc (a few years ago now), they said they didn’t want ‘beta’, so we didn’t include it. So our version identifier is a bit more limited than the typical possibilities, but I guess it is correct, if they are never going to use ‘beta’, only ‘alpha’ and ‘rc’. FWIW I thought it was a bit odd as well!
Details
Reporter
Richard KavanaghRichard KavanaghPriority
Medium
Details
Details
Reporter

The grammar in OpenehrPatterns.g4 seems to have an issue when handling the status in a HRID It has the following line to detect the status and build number (if present). fragment VERSION_MOD: ( '-rc' | '-alpha' ) ( '.' DIGIT+ )? ; The issue is that the logic does not cater for if the status is "beta", should it not also allow for the string '-beta'?