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 Calculator ce_aftertax_income method and make corresponding utility low-level #1723

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Dec 8, 2017
Merged

Add Calculator ce_aftertax_income method and make corresponding utility low-level #1723

merged 4 commits into from
Dec 8, 2017

Conversation

martinholmer
Copy link
Collaborator

This pull request adds a ce_aftertax_income method to the Calculator class, leaving the low-level details in the corresponding ce_aftertax_expanded_income utility function. This pull request is part of the process of finishing the object-oriented design of Tax-Calculator described in issue #1720.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Dec 5, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #1723 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #1723   +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage     100%    100%           
======================================
  Files          37      37           
  Lines        2956    2961    +5     
======================================
+ Hits         2956    2961    +5
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
taxcalc/calculate.py 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
taxcalc/utils.py 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
taxcalc/taxcalcio.py 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️

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 3bb49f0...6d7987a. Read the comment docs.

@MattHJensen
Copy link
Contributor

@martinholmer, this seems right, but it doesn't look like our current testing allows us to know whether the refactoring changes results. Do you think it would be worthwhile to augment the testing?

@martinholmer
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@MattHJensen said:

[PR #1723] seems right, but it doesn't look like our current testing allows us to know whether the refactoring changes results. Do you think it would be worthwhile to augment the testing?

Yes. Good suggestion to strengthen the testing.

@martinholmer martinholmer requested review from MattHJensen and removed request for MattHJensen December 8, 2017 23:15
@martinholmer martinholmer merged commit d78e3c3 into PSLmodels:master Dec 8, 2017
@MattHJensen
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @martinholmer. The new testing looks great.

@martinholmer martinholmer deleted the calc-ceinc-method branch December 11, 2017 16:42
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.

3 participants