search

Ninja-Squad / globe42

repository dedicated to the development of Globe 42 collective application to help them to manage their members
12 stars 3 forks source link

Update the family situation #176

Closed acrepet closed 6 years ago

acrepet commented 6 years ago
jnizet commented 6 years ago

Regarding the number of depenents, I don't think this belongs to the family situation:

So I would just put that information elsewhere, directly in the person information (under the fiscal information, since that's a fiscal-related information, AFAIK)

Regarding the number of minor/major/married children, isn't it a bit weird? Because minors often become majors, and singles often become married or vice-versa, so that information changes often, which means that when globe will do something with that information, it has a good chance of being obsolete and wrong, and they will thus have to ask the person if the information is still correct anyway. So is it worth storing it?

acrepet commented 6 years ago

I've asked Globe 42 for clarifications

acrepet commented 6 years ago

I've just updated the description with the new elements

jnizet commented 6 years ago

So that I understand, do we agree on the following points?

  1. The number of children in the family situation doesn't have a direct relationship with the number of dependants: some children might not be dependants (because they're independant, or taken care of by someone else, for example), and some dependants might not be children. So the family situation and the number of dependants will be filled in two separate, independant parts of the app.

  2. In the family situation, we just ask the number of children in those three categories, and have thus no actual way of knowing the number of children: some are major but not married, some are minor and married, etc. The fact that they can belong to several categories is confusing, IMO. The term "married" is also confusing. Does a PACS count as "married"? I guess they know what they're talking about, but I still fear that they wouldn't all fill the form the same way.

  3. The RUC part belongs to the resources section, where we should add a section about the dependants in addition to incomes and charges, and thus be able to compute the RUC in addition to the "incomes - charges" total.

  4. This is actually a question about the RUC, but it's related, so I'll ask it here: is the formula really "monthly income / number of consumption units", or is it rather "monthly (income - charges) / number of consumption units"?

acrepet commented 6 years ago

  1. You're right : a person can have dependents that are not of his family, so yes the family situation and the number of dependants will be filled in two separate

  2. I still do not have clear answers about the number of children in three categories ;-( the question is still pending in trello. My proposal in Trello was (sorry for the copy/paste in French) : "Petit problème : les enfants mineurs à un instant A deviendront majeurs à un instant B. Et vous n'allez pas vous taper toutes les mises à jour (changer le nombre d'enfants quand un d'entre eux devient majeurs). Même chose pour les enfants mariés, ça risque de beaucoup changer et vous obliger à maintenir ce genre d'infos. Propostion : Ne peut-on pas plutôt mettre la date de naissance pour les enfants? Et peut-on ne pas mettre le nombre d'enfants mariés?"

  3. The RUC has to be computed in the resources section, right! But the dependants IMHO have to be in the member section (because it could have other usages I guess). I can ask them!

  4. No : to compute the RUC, we have to divide the monthly income by the number of consumption units! We do not have to take in account "income - charges". This is an official rule by the CAF (like "le quotient familial"), so the charge are not to be taken in account

jnizet commented 6 years ago

The current family situation design is not very adequate anymore, IMHO. And it clutters the person edition form and makes it more complex than necessary.

Here's what I suggest:

  1. We remove the family situations from the person edition form
  2. In the person details page, in the section "Family situation", we either have no family situation, or we have one. In any case, we have a link to create/modify it. And we can delete it if it's present.
  3. We model the family situation as an optional OneToOne with Person
  4. In the edition form, we display something like this: 
    Parents:         [] en France  [] au Pays
Epoux(se):       O pas d'époux(se)  O en France  O au Pays
Enfants :        Prénom: ______  Date de naissance: _____  O En France  O Au Pays  [Supprimer]
             [Ajouter]

It makes the design simpler. It makes it possible to easily "move" a child from France to abroad and vice-versa. It avoids allowing to have a spouse both in France and abroad at the same time (I assume there is no polygamy. If there has to be, then we can replace the radio buttons by checkboxes). If the persons don't want to provide the first names, they can just use A, B, C, but at least it makes it possible to identify them.

In the person details page, we can still display two sections "France" and "Abroad" as we're doing currently.

What do you think?

The hardest part will be to migrate the data from the current design to the new one, but we can do that in Java if necessary.

acrepet commented 6 years ago

Such a good thing to remove the family situations from the person edition form ! Person edition form has to be definitely simpler! I totally agree to model the family situation as an optional OneToOne with Person ! OK for your UX proposals of the person details page and the edition form.