You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This has come up during the discussions on #778 and related.
The graph relies on a 1:1 mapping of function arguments and data. But we need a (n unknown) number candidate contents of bg_id and wthh_id in order to determine the correct setting in households where we have more than one fg and/or more than one bg.
#778 solves this via a complex workaround, which involves manually using fg_id as a candidate bg_id. It only works for a small number of candidates and which requires fg_id == hh_id.
Instead, we should provide for an option to
Call a part of the DAG / another function which returns all possible candidate bg_id-wthh_id constellations, which pass some "absolute" checks (e.g., we won't need to worry about households failing the wealth checks).
Create a sub-DAG, which will output the required targets (here, probably something like whether a particular candidate allocation of bg_ids and wthh_ids is valid in the first place along with eligibility for and payments from arbeitsl_geld_2, kinderzuschl, wohngeld).
Make checks like vorrang or günstiger based on the results from 2.
This will be complex, also for users. We may want to provide a shortcut that allows for the same setup as we used to have: bg_id == fg_id == wthh_id == hh_id, then the checks are trivial.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This has come up during the discussions on #778 and related.
The graph relies on a 1:1 mapping of function arguments and data. But we need a (n unknown) number candidate contents of
bg_id
andwthh_id
in order to determine the correct setting in households where we have more than onefg
and/or more than onebg
.#778 solves this via a complex workaround, which involves manually using
fg_id
as a candidatebg_id
. It only works for a small number of candidates and which requiresfg_id == hh_id
.Instead, we should provide for an option to
bg_id
-wthh_id
constellations, which pass some "absolute" checks (e.g., we won't need to worry about households failing the wealth checks).bg_id
s andwthh_id
s is valid in the first place along with eligibility for and payments fromarbeitsl_geld_2
,kinderzuschl
,wohngeld
).vorrang
orgünstiger
based on the results from 2.This will be complex, also for users. We may want to provide a shortcut that allows for the same setup as we used to have:
bg_id
==fg_id
==wthh_id
==hh_id
, then the checks are trivial.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: