343 - Fixed the ValueSets Code: ">" for Markdown Table

[oslynn]

This PR ...

Fixed the bug of ValueSets Code Do Not Serialized Cleanly into Markdown
Table.
Code: ">" in common.valuesets table hl70078 is the blockquote in
markdown control character. We need to user ">" (html code
symbol for ">" instead.

Test Steps:

1. run ./prime generate-docs command

2. Check the covid-19.md file to see the ">" is included in the hl70078 table as below:

   BEFORE:
   

AFTER:

System data processing using prime data command to generate the hl7 output from covid-19.schem that use the newly
code in the table above:

./prime data --input-fake 100 --input-schema covid-19 --output ./junk/fake-covid-19.hl7 --output-format HL7_BATCH

HL7 output file that contain the coded value:

Changes

• Map the code: ">" to code: "&Make the cli match the new jar name #62;" during markdown doc generation.
• (For web UI changes) Include screenshots/video of changes
  

Checklist

Testing

• Tested locally?
• Ran ./prime test or ./gradlew testSmoke against local Docker ReportStream container?
• (For Changes to /frontend-react/...) Ran npm run lint:write?
• Added tests?

Process

• Are there licensing issues with any new dependencies introduced?
• Includes a summary of what a code reviewer should test/verify?
• Updated the release notes?
• Database changes are submitted as a separate PR?
• DevOps team has been notified if PR requires ops support?

Fixes

• #issue - List GitHub issues this PR fixes
  ticket Some ValueSets Do Not Serialize Cleanly Into a Markdown Table #343: https://app.zenhub.com/workspaces/prime-reportstream-5ff4833beb3e08001a4cacae/issues/cdcgov/prime-reportstream/343

To Be Done

Create GitHub issues to track the work remaining, if any

• #issue

Specific Security-related subjects a reviewer should pay specific attention to

• Does this PR introduce new endpoints?
  • new endpoint A
  • new endpoint B
• Does this PR include changes in authentication and/or authorization of existing endpoints?
• Does this change introduce new dependencies that need vetting?
• Does this change require changes to our infrastructure?
• Does logging contain sensitive data?
• Does this PR include or remove any sensitive information itself?

If you answered 'yes' to any of the questions above, conduct a detailed Review that addresses at least:

• What are the potential security threats and mitigations? Please list the STRIDE threats and how they are mitigated
  • Spoofing (faking authenticity)
    • Threat T, which could be achieved by A, is mitigated by M
  • Tampering (influence or sabotage the integrity of information, data, or system)
  • Repudiation (the ability to dispute the origin or originator of an action)
  • Information disclosure (data made available to entities who should not have it)
  • Denial of service (make a resource unavailable)
  • Elevation of Privilege (reduce restrictions that apply or gain privileges one should not have)
• Have you ensured logging does not contain sensitive data?
• Have you received any additional approvals needed for this change?

Pull reviewers stats

Stats for the last 30 days:

	User	Total reviews	Median time to review	Total comments
	MauriceReeves-usds	28	23h 9m	11
	cwinters-usds	25	9h 52m	14
	clediggins-usds	21	35m	29
	carlosfelix2	20	18h 18m	87
	kevinhaube	16	7m	3
	sean-usds	14	1h 10m	4
	RickHawesUSDS	12	4h 9m	27
	jimduff-usds	12	15h 53m	27
	whytheplatypus	10	2h 5m	22
	TomNUSDS	7	6m	1
	brick-green-agile6	5	13h 50m	2
	ronaldheft-usds	4	10m	1
	jeremy-page	4	14m	0
	ahay-agile6	2	2d 16h 45m	0
	sethdarragile6	2	10h 27m	10
	JosiahSiegel	1	5d 2h 55m	2
	jorg3lopez	1	1h 48m	0
	jbiskie	1	26m	0

Pull reviewers stats

Stats for the last 30 days:

	User	Total reviews	Median time to review	Total comments
	MauriceReeves-usds	42	16h 44m	11
	cwinters-usds	26	4h 4m	16
	carlosfelix2	24	3h 54m	118
	clediggins-usds	23	1h 30m	36
	kevinhaube	20	6m	3
	sean-usds	18	1h 20m	3
	RickHawesUSDS	15	4h 17m	22
	jimduff-usds	15	13h 28m	22
	whytheplatypus	13	18h 11m	46
	TomNUSDS	9	1h 28m	6
	brick-green-agile6	5	13h 50m	1
	jeremy-page	4	14m	0
	ronaldheft-usds	3	10m	1
	sethdarragile6	3	3h 19m	10
	ahay-agile6	2	1d 9h 28m	0
	JosiahSiegel	1	5d 2h 55m	2
	jorg3lopez	1	1h 48m	0
	jbiskie	1	26m	0

Pull reviewers stats

Stats for the last 30 days:

	User	Total reviews	Median time to review	Total comments
	cwinters-usds	30	1h 50m	18
	MauriceReeves-usds	26	14h 59m	6
	kevinhaube	23	48m	10
	sean-usds	21	1h 30m	6
	carlosfelix2	19	16h 53m	54
	jimduff-usds	18	1d 1h 24m	8
	RickHawesUSDS	14	4h 51m	5
	whytheplatypus	10	17h 22m	19
	clediggins-usds	10	2h 51m	24
	TomNUSDS	9	22m	2
	jbiskie	5	1h 26m	1
	ahay-agile6	2	1d 9h 28m	0
	jorg3lopez	2	9d 21h 37m	0
	brick-green-agile6	2	14m	0
	JosiahSiegel	1	5d 2h 55m	2
	MikeC-A6	1	7h 7m	3
	rhood23699	1	14h 10m	0
	sethdarragile6	1	2h 17m	0

[github-actions]

Unit Test Results

  41 files  ±0    41 suites  ±0   29s ⏱️ ±0s
309 tests +1  305 ✔️ +1  4 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit e266cbd. ± Comparison against base commit c69a983.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[github-actions]

Integration Test Results

11 files  11 suites   1m 42s ⏱️
82 tests 82 ✔️ 0 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit e266cbd.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[MauriceReeves-usds]

@oslynn - Please add some unit tests to this to verify the changes.

--- @mauricereeves , I added unit test case to verify the changes.

[sonarqubecloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
1 Code Smell

No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication