data/investigation_groups.json (1)

29-80: Inconsistent capitalization in group names

Some observations about the naming conventions:

• "Cerebro Spinal Fluid analysis" - "analysis" is not capitalized
• "Gastric Analysis" - "Analysis" is capitalized
• "Semen analysis" - "analysis" is not capitalized
• "Stool Examination" - "Examination" is capitalized

Perhaps we should settle on one style? I'm leaning towards capitalizing all words in the group names.

-        "name": "Cerebro Spinal Fluid analysis"
+        "name": "Cerebro Spinal Fluid Analysis"
-        "name": "Semen analysis"
+        "name": "Semen Analysis"

care/facility/tests/test_management_commands.py (2)

21-25: Just counting entries? How... minimalist.

While the count validation is a good start, it might be nice to add some basic data integrity checks.

Consider adding validation for essential fields:

def test_data_integrity(self):
    for investigation in self.investigations:
        db_investigation = PatientInvestigation.objects.get(name=investigation["name"])
        self.assertEqual(db_investigation.unit, investigation.get("unit", ""))
        self.assertEqual(db_investigation.ideal_value, investigation.get("ideal_value", ""))

---

27-48: Testing just 10 entries? That's... brave.

While the dictionary optimization for group lookups is commendable, the sample size seems a bit small for a proper validation.

Consider either:

1. Testing all entries (preferred for critical data)
2. Using a more representative random sample:

-        # taking first and last 5 data to test it out
-        test_investigation_data = self.investigations[:5] + self.investigations[-5:]
+        import random
+        # Testing ~20% of entries with a minimum of 10
+        sample_size = max(10, len(self.investigations) // 5)
+        test_investigation_data = random.sample(self.investigations, sample_size)

Also, that informal comment could be more... professional.

-        # taking first and last 5 data to test it out
+        # Sampling subset of investigations for relationship validation

care/users/management/commands/populate_investigations.py (3)

17-21: Perhaps we could add some basic error handling?

While I'm sure you've tested this thoroughly, it might be nice to handle scenarios where these files don't exist, instead of letting it crash and burn. Just a thought!

-        with Path("data/investigations.json").open() as investigations_data:
-            investigations = json.load(investigations_data)
+        try:
+            with Path("data/investigations.json").open() as investigations_data:
+                investigations = json.load(investigations_data)
+        except (FileNotFoundError, json.JSONDecodeError) as e:
+            raise CommandError(f"Failed to load investigations.json: {e}")

---

51-58: These try-except blocks look awfully repetitive...

We could consolidate these similar try-except blocks into a helper function. You know, DRY and all that...

+        def safe_float_conversion(value):
+            try:
+                return float(value)
+            except (ValueError, TypeError, KeyError):
+                return None
+
-            try:
-                data["min_value"] = float(investigation["min"])
-            except (ValueError, TypeError, KeyError):
-                data["min_value"] = None
-            try:
-                data["max_value"] = float(investigation["max"])
-            except (ValueError, TypeError, KeyError):
-                data["max_value"] = None
+            data["min_value"] = safe_float_conversion(investigation.get("min"))
+            data["max_value"] = safe_float_conversion(investigation.get("max"))

---

102-105: The success message could be a tiny bit more informative...

Maybe we could tell users how many records were actually created/updated? Just a thought!

         if kwargs.get("verbosity", 1) > 0:
             self.stdout.write(
-                self.style.SUCCESS("Successfully populated investigation data")
+                self.style.SUCCESS(
+                    f"Successfully populated investigation data: "
+                    f"{len(bulk_create_data)} created, {len(bulk_update_data)} updated"
+                )
             )

data/investigations.json (2)

2277-2287: Fix multiline ideal value formatting

The Troponin ideal value contains Windows-style line endings (\r\n). For consistency, use Unix-style line endings.

-        "ideal": " Troponin I (cTnI) :0-0.08 ng/ml\r\n Ttroponin T (cTnT):0-0.01 ng/ml",
+        "ideal": "Troponin I (cTnI): 0-0.08 ng/ml\nTroponin T (cTnT): 0-0.01 ng/ml",

---

2743-2753: Fix trailing newlines in test name

The porphobilinogen test name contains multiple trailing newlines which could cause display issues.

-        "name": "porphobilinogen\n\n",
+        "name": "porphobilinogen",

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

#!/bin/bash
# Check if all new group IDs (8-20) are referenced in investigations.json
echo "Checking references for new investigation groups..."
for id in {8..20}; do
    echo "Group $id:"
    rg -c "\"group\": *\"$id\"" investigations.json
done

data/investigation_groups.json (3)

Line range hint 1-28: Ah, the creative approach to capitalization continues...

I notice we're being quite... flexible with our capitalization standards:

• "Biochemistry test" (id: 2)
• "Kidney Function test" (id: 7)
• "Liver Function Test" (id: 6)

Perhaps we could align these to be consistently capitalized? Unless there's some secret medical convention I'm not aware of? 😊

    {
        "id": "2",
-        "name": "Biochemistry test"
+        "name": "Biochemistry Test"
    },
    {
        "id": "7",
-        "name": "Kidney Function test"
+        "name": "Kidney Function Test"
    }

---

70-73: Consistency in terminology would be lovely

I see we have some entries with lowercase "analysis" while others use proper test naming conventions:

• "Semen analysis"
• "Stool Examination"

Shall we make them all follow the same pattern?

    {
        "id": "18",
-        "name": "Semen analysis"
+        "name": "Semen Analysis"
    }

Also applies to: 74-77

---

39-41: Abbreviation without context

"ABG" is used without its full form. While medical professionals might know this stands for Arterial Blood Gas, it might be helpful to include the full form for clarity.

    {
        "id": "10",
-        "name": "ABG"
+        "name": "ABG (Arterial Blood Gas)"
    }

care/users/management/commands/populate_investigations.py (3)

10-12: Perhaps we could make this function a tiny bit more robust?

While the function works, it might be nice to add some basic error handling for those special moments when files don't exist or contain invalid JSON.

 def load_json(file_path):
-    with Path(file_path).open() as json_file:
-        return json.load(json_file)
+    try:
+        with Path(file_path).open() as json_file:
+            return json.load(json_file)
+    except (FileNotFoundError, json.JSONDecodeError) as e:
+        raise CommandError(f"Failed to load {file_path}: {str(e)}")

---

Line range hint 84-124: Maybe add some progress reporting for those special long-running imports?

While the success message at the end is nice, it might be helpful to know what's happening during those potentially long-running bulk operations.

     def handle(self, *args, **kwargs):
+        verbosity = kwargs.get("verbosity", 1)
         investigation_groups = load_json("data/investigation_groups.json")
+        if verbosity > 0:
+            self.stdout.write(f"Loaded {len(investigation_groups)} investigation groups")
         investigations = load_json("data/investigations.json")
+        if verbosity > 0:
+            self.stdout.write(f"Loaded {len(investigations)} investigations")

---

Line range hint 1-124: A dash of logging would make production issues so much easier to debug...

Consider adding proper logging throughout the command for better observability in production. This would help track data inconsistencies and performance issues.

Key areas to add logging:

• Number of records created/updated
• Time taken for bulk operations
• Any data validation issues
• Skipped records due to validation failures

data/investigations.json (2)

29-29: Standardize unicode character usage

The unit changes from cell/cumm to cell/µl use different unicode representations for the micro symbol:

• Some use \u03bcl
• Others might use the literal µ character

Consider standardizing to use the unicode escape sequence \u03bc consistently across all measurements.

Also applies to: 42-42, 55-55, 68-68, 81-81

---

Line range hint 1-11: Verify Blood Group categorization

The Blood Group test has an empty category_id array, which seems incorrect as it's a fundamental hematology test. Consider adding appropriate categories:

     "name": "Blood Group",
     "type": "Choice",
     "choices": "A-,A+,B+,B-,O+,O-,AB-,AB+",
     "unit": null,
     "ideal": null,
     "min": null,
     "max": null,
-    "category_id": []
+    "category_id": [1, 4]

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL