Add 'binding' as a possible deviation cause to known-issues

[jd-nictiz]

d3315df

Had to remove this to 'make it work', but it seems like a valid deviation cause that should be added?

[pieter-edelman-nictiz]

I'm not sure I can't really parse this ticket anymore. @jduwel , do you still know what this is about?

[jd-nictiz]

When it comes to the date, this is around the time of the release of Lab 3.0: https://informatiestandaarden.nictiz.nl/index.php?title=Lab:V3.0.0_FHIR_Lab2zorg&action=history

I do see that https://zibs.nl/wiki/LaboratoryTestResult-v4.6(2020EN)#ContainerTypeCodelist has a required binding and that the binding in the profile https://simplifier.net/packages/nictiz.fhir.nl.r4.zib2020/0.9.0-beta.1/files/2004489 is extensible.
In https://simplifier.net/packages/nictiz.fhir.nl.r4.nl-core/0.9.0-beta.1/files/2004675 a new binding is added with a comment on it.

I guess someone was trying to add this to known-issues aswell and did in a way that was not valid following our QA. So I had to remove it before I probably could approve/merge some PR.

The underlying issue that this whole move is not following our guidelines, well I am aware. Perhaps we should focus on 'knitting that straight' in some way. But I am not sure what the status of LabTestResult as a whole is.

[pieter-edelman-nictiz]

But the QA tooling doesn't check binding strength, does it? So there's not really an exception to document.

If you want to document this exception anyway you can do so by picking a key that's not recognized by the tooling, in case it will be ignored. For example:

zib-LaboratoryTestResult.Specimen:
  zib deviations:
    Specimen.identifier:
      - cardinality: 0..* instead of 0..1
        reason: Although a single SpecimenId is allowed according to the zib, .identifier is often used for additional identifiers outside the scope of the zib. It's not possible to create a slice or pattern specifically for SpecimenId without further formal requirements by the zib.
  notes:
    Specimen.container.type:
      - note: The binding strength is set to extensible instead of required, because ...

[pieter-edelman-nictiz]

But yeah ... there's an underlying issue. I'll create a ticket for it.

[jd-nictiz]

It was just for documentation purposes I suppose. And the notes thing wasn't possible at that point I think (or I wasn't aware).

Aside from the underlying issue: if we indeed want to document it in known-issues, we could re-add it with the notes key.

But as for the reason for this issue: good point that indeed the QA doesn't check for binding at all. So perhpas we can leave it at this. And per the underlying issue it shouldn't be a zib deviation at all anyways.