324 disability aggregation northern ireland

[paigeh-fsa]

Pull Request submission

I have imported the disability dataset for NI and the proportions of disabled/non-disabled people that are being served/unserved are now part of the NI script.

You will require a new data file in Sync: data/disability_status/qs303_ni.csv to run the script.

I also created a new function disab_dict (may want to change the name) in data_transform to cut out a whole chunk of copied code across all three scripts. It creates the dataframe for those who are served/unserved for each SA and puts it into a dataframe for that local authority/local government district inside the disability dictionary created. This was created to adhere to DRY across all three scripts and will cut down a lot of the process in the main script when we merge.

Closes or fixes

Fixes #

Code

• [x] Requirements My/our code matches the requirements of the ticket
• [x] Functionality: New functions meet requirements in issue ticket
• [x] Compliant Code Code is as PEP 8 compliant as I can humanly make it
• [x] Code runs The code runs on my machine
• [x] Clean Code
  • [ ] Code has been linted (use your favourite linter)
  • [x] Code adheres to DRY

Documentation

Any new code includes all the following forms of documentation:

• [x] Function Documentation Docstrings within the function(s') definition(s) have been created
  • [x] Includes parameters and returns for all major functions
  • [ ] Includes data types
• [x] Updated Documentation: Working doc has been updated and a new ticket to update the master documentation has been created.

Data

• [x] All data needed to run this script has been added to Sync

Testing

• [ ] Unit tests Unit tests have been created and are passing or a new ticket to create tests has been created

[paigeh-fsa]

Peer Review Section

• [x] All requirements install from (updated) requirements.txt
• [x] Documentation has been created and is clear - check the google Doc
• [x] Doctrings (Google format) have been created and accurately describe the function's functionality
• [ ] Unit tests pass, or if not present a new ticket to create tests has been created
• [x] Code runs The code runs on reviewer's machine

Final approval (post-review)

The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction.

• [x] I recommend merging this request.

---

Review comments

Insert detailed comments here!

These might include, but not exclusively:

• bugs that need fixing (does it work as expected? and does it work with other code that it is likely to interact with?)
• alternative methods (could it be written more efficiently or with more clarity?)
• documentation improvements (does the documentation reflect how the code actually works?)
• additional tests that should be implemented (do the tests effectively assure that it works correctly?)
• code style improvements (could the code be written more clearly?)

Your suggestions should be tailored to the code that you are reviewing. Be critical and clear, but not mean. Ask questions and set actions.