(fix) Replace the existing name instead of creating a new name

[icrc-jofrancisco]

Description of what I changed

Problem

When updating a patient's name using the FHIR endpoint, a new person_name entry is created in the database instead of voiding the existing one and creating a new entry. This results in multiple active names for a single patient, which is incorrect and leads to data inconsistencies. Additionally, OpenMRS does not consider more than one name and always picks the first one, so users cannot see any changes in the UI.

Solution

This fix addresses the problem by:

• Replacing the current name with the new entry, matching their ids (which is how the rest API currently works).
  If the person's name doesn't contain an idfor some reason (in a normal case it will), it will “ replace ” the preferred name for the person.

By implementing this approach, we ensure the UI reflects the latest changes accurately.
Thnaks,

Issue I worked on

see https://issues.openmrs.org/browse/FM2-

Checklist: I completed these to help reviewers :)

• My IDE is configured to follow the code style of this project.

• I have added tests to cover my changes. (If you refactored
  existing code that was well tested you do not have to add tests)

• I ran mvn clean package right before creating this pull request and
  added all formatting changes to my commit.

• All new and existing tests passed.

• My pull request is based on the latest changes of the master branch.

[ibacher]

Functionally, it's incorrect to assume a patient should only have one name. We can, however, try voiding any names that are not in the list. (The UI defaults to the preferred name for a client, but that doesn't mean additional names are not important).

[icrc-jofrancisco]

Functionally, it's incorrect to assume a patient should only have one name. We can, however, try voiding any names that are not in the list. (The UI defaults to the preferred name for a client, but that doesn't mean additional names are not important).

Hey @ibacher , thanks for the feddback.

You're right. I'm trying to implement a logic to update the name instead of setting the others to voided.
But right now I can't figure out which name should be updated, because we only get a list of all names...

I'm still investigating another possible solution, which is why I put the PR in draft.
Anyway, thanks for the feedback!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 83.33333% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 77.87%. Comparing base (c7f2ec2) to head (e36af45).
Report is 8 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...r2/api/translators/impl/PatientTranslatorImpl.java	83.33%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master     #546      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     77.84%   77.87%   +0.03%     
- Complexity     2683     2706      +23     
============================================
  Files           239      239              
  Lines          7452     7511      +59     
  Branches        901      919      +18     
============================================
+ Hits           5801     5849      +48     
  Misses         1115     1115              
- Partials        536      547      +11     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[delphinepas]

@denniskigen @ibacher would it be possible for you to review this PR ? Thank you cc @icrc-jofrancisco @icrc-fdeniger @gracepotma

[ibacher]

This behaviour still strikes me as incorrectly assuming that a patient has only a single name...

[ibacher]

I'm on board with matching existing names based on UUIDs, but I'm not sold that this is a good idea.