Skip to content
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

Add FIPS State Codes to CPS #1653

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 10, 2017
Merged

Conversation

andersonfrailey
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR complements PR #126 in the TaxData repo. It adds the FIPS state code associated with each tax unit in the CPS file.

cc @MattHJensen

@MattHJensen
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM and merging once checks complete. Thanks @andersonfrailey.

Needs caveated documentation in index.html @andersonfrailey.

@andersonfrailey
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Fixing those tests.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Nov 10, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #1653 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #1653   +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage     100%    100%           
======================================
  Files          37      37           
  Lines        2856    2856           
======================================
  Hits         2856    2856

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 61d47f6...23ca0c5. Read the comment docs.

@andersonfrailey
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Seems like the test failure is due to rounding error. I looked and each error was .1, which is why it failed on 2.7 but not 3.6. I updated the CPS expected text file so that it would pass both.

@MattHJensen
Copy link
Contributor

Seems like the test failure is due to rounding error. I looked and each error was .1, which is why it failed on 2.7 but not 3.6. I updated the CPS expected text file so that it would pass both.

Do you know why the results changed at all? I would have thought there'd be no change.

@MattHJensen
Copy link
Contributor

Merging, but would still like a followup on why the tests changed at all.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants