-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 159
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Split policy reform and economic assumption parameters into two separate JSON files #1148
Split policy reform and economic assumption parameters into two separate JSON files #1148
Conversation
Current coverage is 98.89% (diff: 100%)@@ master #1148 diff @@
==========================================
Files 38 38
Lines 3020 3075 +55
Methods 0 0
Messages 0 0
Branches 0 0
==========================================
+ Hits 2986 3041 +55
Misses 34 34
Partials 0 0
|
This PR would seem to significantly change this interface: The effort level is not low for this change on the web application and I am not sure I see the benefit. Is this an "example" PR or is there genuine interest in merging this to master? |
@talumbau said about PR #1148:
As #1148 mentions, the rationale for making this change in Tax-Calculator, and the additional necessary changes to the TaxBrain file upload page, have been discussed at length in issue #1140. So, yes, "there is genuine interest in merging this to master". |
@talumbau, there is a lot of material in #1140. Here are the relevant comments for this PR. #1140 (comment) Edit: first link was incorrect. |
@@ -33,10 +33,24 @@ | |||
"behavior": { | |||
"_BE_sub": {"2016": [0.25]} | |||
}, | |||
"consumption": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it correct that REFORM_CONTENTS should have behavior, consumption, and growth? Or should that be only in ASSUMP_CONTENTS?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, should be in ASSUMP_CONTENTS. Thanks for finding this problem, which I've fixed in commit 4e5af19.
This looks great, @martinholmer. |
Both @MattHJensen and @talumbau have commented on pull request #1148. Unless anybody expresses concerns, #1148 will be merged into the master branch at the end of the work day on Tuesday, January 24th. @feenberg @Amy-Xu @andersonfrailey @GoFroggyRun @zrisher @codykallen |
@martinholmer, do you mind merging this early today instead of late today? I'm hoping to refactor #1135 today. |
@MattHJensen said:
Merging #1148 now. |
Thanks! |
This pull request implements in Tax-Calculator one of the key ideas in the issue #1140 conversation: the separation of policy reform parameters and economic assumption parameters into two different JSON files.