[APHL-954] recursive action check

[TahaAttari]

No description provided.

[github-actions]

Formatting check succeeded!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 89.09091% with 18 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 62.00%. Comparing base (1cb69aa) to head (b5c7fc7).

Files	Patch %	Lines
...fhir/utility/adapter/r5/PlanDefinitionAdapter.java	89.55%	6 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...fhir/utility/adapter/r4/PlanDefinitionAdapter.java	90.47%	5 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...r/utility/adapter/dstu3/PlanDefinitionAdapter.java	90.90%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...ility/visitor/KnowledgeArtifactReleaseVisitor.java	0.00%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master     #468      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     61.13%   62.00%   +0.87%     
- Complexity     3466     3548      +82     
============================================
  Files           328      328              
  Lines         17539    17564      +25     
  Branches       2703     2707       +4     
============================================
+ Hits          10722    10891     +169     
+ Misses         5609     5464     -145     
- Partials       1208     1209       +1     

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

[barhodes]

Seems like we should be looking at action.definition to ensure we get all possible dependencies. Are those being handled elsewhere? Test coverage in these classes is a bit low. Would be grand to add a few more tests.

[TahaAttari]

Yes, good catch 🙏🏾 we should be checking for action.definitionCanonical 👍🏾 I'll make the update