feat(invoicing): SAV-1023: Price rules update

[tcaiger]

Changes

Requested changes from Edwin in slack
https://beyondessential.slack.com/archives/C04AND1FW13/p1768522730069189

• Update rules sort order
• Update name of patient type key

Deploys

• Deploy to Tamanu Internal

Tests

• Run E2E Tests

Remember to...

• ...write or update tests
• ...add UI screenshots and testing notes to the Linear issue
• ...add any manual upgrade steps to the Linear issue
• ...update the config reference, settings reference, or any relevant runbook(s)
• ...call out additions or changes to config files for the deployment team to take note of

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @tcaiger, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request focuses on refining the invoicing price list matching mechanism. It primarily involves a refactor to rename the patientType property to patientBillingType for better semantic accuracy within the system's rules. Additionally, it optimizes a database query by removing an extraneous ordering clause, which contributes to cleaner and potentially more efficient data retrieval for price lists.

Highlights

• Refactoring Patient Type Field: The patientType field has been consistently renamed to patientBillingType across the price rule matching logic and associated test cases for improved clarity and consistency.
• Database Query Optimization: The findAll query for InvoicePriceList has been streamlined by removing the createdAt ordering criterion, which was deemed unnecessary for the price list matching process.
• Test Case Updates: All relevant test cases in invoicePriceListMatching.test.ts have been updated to reflect the patientBillingType change, ensuring the tests remain accurate and functional.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request correctly refactors the price list rules to use patientBillingType instead of patientType, which improves clarity. The changes are applied consistently across the model logic and associated tests. My main concern, detailed in a specific comment, is that this introduces a breaking change for existing data that needs to be handled with a data migration and proper documentation.

[tcodling]

bugbot run

[chris-bes]

LGTM