TreatmentPatterns results data model is missing cdm_version_concept_id column

[SantanM]

Hello -

Background: We have tried to execute Strategus study on Synpuf 5% data with CohortGenerator and TreatmentPatterns modules. Although the execution of the analysis is successful, the upload results step fails for the TreatmentPatterns package.

Error message:

✖ TreatmentPatternsModule java.sql.BatchUpdateException: Batch entry 0 INSERT INTO results_treatment_pathways_study_3.tp_cdm_source_info (cdm_source_name,cdm_source_abbreviation,cdm_holder,source_description,source_documentation_reference,cdm_etl_reference,source_release_date,cdm_release_date,cdm_version,cdm_version_concept_id,vocabulary_version,analysis_id,database_id) VALUES('redacted','redacted','redacted',NULL,NULL,NULL,'2024-02-23 +00','2024-02-23 +00','5.4',NULL,NULL,1.0,5.60471365E8) was aborted: ERROR: column "cdm_version_concept_id" of relation "tp_cdm_source_info" does not exist
Position: 236  Call getNextException to see other errors in the batch. (Execution Time: 3.74 secs)

Root cause:
The current version of TreatmentPatterns results data model spec (here) does not contain the column cdm_version_concept_id. Whereas the results generated by the TreatmentPatterns includes the column cdm_version_concept_id in the file tp_cdm_source_info.csv. That is because, CDMInterface class in TreatmentPatterns reads the cdm_source table from CDM.

[SantanM]

Easy solution would be to just add the cdm_version_concept_id column to the TreatmentPatterns results data model. But this solution would not be backward compatible for CDM below v5.4. Ideally, the solution should be something like here, but in the TreatmentPattern module.

I may have been too quick to judge that, because the solution might work. For the older versions of CDM, the column cdm_version_concept_id would be empty always.

[anthonysena]

Thanks @SantanM for reporting this issue. I think adding the cdm_version_concept_id as proposed makes sense here and additionally the creation of the data model & upload unit tests should have caught this. I'll have to see how this was missed in testing.

[SivamshIndukuri]

@SantanM I hit the same issue as well. I will attempt to put in a patch that would fix this issue.