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

B 20940 int 2 #13662

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Sep 10, 2024
Merged

B 20940 int 2 #13662

merged 4 commits into from
Sep 10, 2024

Conversation

antgmann
Copy link
Contributor

@antgmann antgmann commented Sep 9, 2024

B-20940

Note

This is a follow up PR to #13574 , created in order to resolve some unexpected behavior from the originally supplied calculation

Summary

During PO Acceptance, our PO had to change a couple requirements about the calculation.

Originally it was planned that Member Disbursement should not be less than 0, however in the case that a member has requested an advance greater than their expenses, this value should be shown as negative to reflect the difference that they owe back to the government.

For this solution, it’s important to note that GTCC disbursement will only ever be less than 0 using the calculation of (remaining entitlement + member paid storage). In this case, member disbursement will be set to the value of the negative GTCC disbursement. GTCC disbursement will be set to 0. The other calculation of (GTCC Totaled other expenses + GTCC Storage expense) can never be less than 0.

In all other cases, the calculation will perform as outlined in the AC. This results in the disbursement numbers we are looking for.

This change has been described to the PO, and they agree that it's the best way forward.

Verification Steps for the Author

These are to be checked by the author.

  • Have the Agility acceptance criteria been met for this change?

Verification Steps for Reviewers

These are to be checked by a reviewer.

  • Has the branch been pulled in and checked out?
  • Have the BL acceptance criteria been met for this change?
  • Was the CircleCI build successful?
  • Has the code been reviewed from a standards and best practices point of view?

How to test

  1. Access the application as a service member.
  2. Create a PPM with a comically large Advance request.
  3. When adding information about the move in terms of expenses, keep them to a minimum. The idea is to create a negative remaining PPM incentive.
  4. Log in as a service counselor and keep the move going between the two roles to reach the closeout process.
  5. As a customer in the closeout process, create a very small member-paid storage expense. This will help us ensure things are calculated properly.
  6. Complete the closeout process and download the Payment Packet.
  7. Ensure GTCC Disbursement is 0.
  8. Ensure member disbursement is equal to the negative remaining PPM incentive, plus the positive member-paid storage expense, resulting in a closer-to-zero negative number. This is the amount you now owe the government :)

Backend

@antgmann antgmann added Scrummy Bears Scrum Team H INTEGRATION Slated for Integration Testing labels Sep 9, 2024
@antgmann antgmann self-assigned this Sep 9, 2024
@antgmann antgmann requested a review from a team as a code owner September 9, 2024 20:32
Copy link
Contributor

@traskowskycaci traskowskycaci left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Math looks right to me!
image

@antgmann antgmann merged commit 0e6df3f into integrationTesting Sep 10, 2024
30 checks passed
@antgmann antgmann deleted the B-20940-INT branch September 10, 2024 12:20
@antgmann antgmann mentioned this pull request Sep 11, 2024
7 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
INTEGRATION Slated for Integration Testing Scrummy Bears Scrum Team H
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants