Conversation
hmgaudecker
left a comment
hmgaudecker
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just skimmed through it, great start!
| --- | ||
| info: | ||
| note: '' | ||
| note: Skipped because multiple fgs in hh. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this statement is wrong here and for the next few tests, so not repeating. Sometimes there are multiple households indeed, but only one fg per household.
| - true | ||
| - true | ||
| assumed: {} | ||
| assumed: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not make it the same as in the next few tests, i.e., adding einstandspartner etc? No big deal, but might make people wonder who look at these one after the other.
| info: | ||
| note: https://www.bmwsb.bund.de/Webs/BMWSB/DE/themen/wohnen/wohnraumfoerderung/wohngeld/wohngeldrechner-2023-artikel.html | ||
| source: '' | ||
| note: Skipped because multiple fgs in hh. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can't we supply the bg_id or would that run counter the purpose of the test in the first place? Same for the next test.
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #768 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 89.62% 89.41% -0.21%
==========================================
Files 52 52
Lines 3768 3780 +12
==========================================
+ Hits 3377 3380 +3
- Misses 391 400 +9 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please make 9 tests out of this one and similar ones, else the yaml is illegible. Apologies, I did not mean my suggestion elsewhere to be taken that literally.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you sure? I worked with both versions and as this is mainly about when household members switch BGs / wthh, I think it helps to have households that are similar (=everything the same, only wage is increasing across households) together and ordered.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes! I think this is a great example of where the current thing makes sense while developing (you are sure about the structure and unsure what is correct), but does not when some test starts to fail in 3 years from now (you'd look at the huge test file like I did a couple of hours ago and it takes you ages to realise the precise structure because that's not what our yaml structure is made for).
So feel free to change only when this is ready for review.
Structure should be clear when you nest one level deeper:
endogenous_bg_id/2023/single_parent_unterhalt_1000_1_child/
- parental_income_0.yaml
- parental_income_520.yaml
etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah yes, makes sense!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just realised it is confusing to have the two digits following each other in the directory name. Maybe change to:
endogenous_bg_id/2023/single_parent_1_child_unterhalt_1000/
- parental_income_0.yaml
- parental_income_520.yaml
? Also more sensible to have number of children first and then the alimony paid for them.
|
Improved version in #778 |
2 participants
What problem do you want to solve?
Create the bg_id and wthh_id for households with exactly 1
fgendogenously.Based on the discussion in #763