Calculate fields with relevance conditions fail to evaluate

[kennsippell]

To Reproduce
Form supervision_with_chw_iccm in https://github.com/medic/config-muso/pull/418/checks?check_run_id=3463026173#step:6:1297

  it('#weird form', async () => {
    await harness.setNow('2000-04-30');
    const noPatientEvaluated = submissionDate => [
      submissionDate ? ['no', submissionDate] : ['yes'],
      ['yes', 'yes'],
      ['yes', 'yes'],
      ['no'],
      [...Array(16).fill('yes')],
      ['yes', 'yes'],
      ['yes'],
      ['Other comments'],
      []
    ];
    const result1 = await harness.fillForm('supervision_with_chw_iccm', ...noPatientEvaluated());
    expect(result1.errors).to.be.empty;
  });

What happened?
AssertionError: expected 'Exception in form-host fillAppForm: FormLogicError: Could not evaluate: /model/instance[1]/supervision_with_chw_iccm/s_patient_evaluation_group/s_patient_evaluation_list/s_taking_other_parameters/has_counted_resp_rate = \'yes\', message: Cannot read property \'ownerDocument\' of undefined' to be empty

What did you expect?
Can complete form.

[kennsippell]

This reproduces on cht-core 3.10.5. I believe this is a cht-core issue not a parity issue in the harness.

[derickl]

This isn't a bug in cht-core. The root cause was linked to having a relevance condition to calculate expression.

This thread and this were quite informative.

If I understand well, it means that ALL calculation types are always “fired”, even in an empty repeat (count 0) or a non-relevant group. So, a relevant clause together with a calculation type NEVER makes sense. Could you confirm, please?

What was weird was that the nodes called out in the error were always in an irrelevant block.

@Marina-Kenf To fix your form, you'd need to delete any relevance expressions on calculate fields and reuse them in the calculation expression.

I'll give an example:

Under s_tdr_realisation,
we have a calculate field other_sign
with the following relevance condition selected(${which_indication_for_tdr}, 'other')
and the following calculation expression ${specify_other_indication_for_tdr}

To fix this, you'd delete the relevance expression and reuse it in the calculation as follows:
if(selected(${which_indication_for_tdr}, 'other'), ${specify_other_indication_for_tdr}, '')

[derickl]

Investigate parity issue with #78

[kennsippell]

@derickl In your opinion, should the harness (or pyxform) error/fail tests when there is a relevant condition on a calculate field? Should form authors be completing avoiding that data combination?

[derickl]

should the harness (or pyxform) error/fail tests when there is a relevant condition on a calculate field
Yes.

Should form authors be completely avoiding that data combination?
Yes.

[kennsippell]

@derickl I've opened medic/cht-conf#436. Do you think that would be the correct fix for this? Are there other things the harness could do before closing this issue as duplicate of medic/cht-conf#436?

[derickl]

Similar class of error #143. 'Note fields marked as required, will not advance in harness'