Allow user to report Conduit Earmark that crosses report coverage dates

[exalate-issue-sync[bot]]

Business Reason

As a user, I will be able to set a date in the Conduit Earmark Out on Schedule B which is outside of report coverage dates and system will ensure that memo item selection will still always match the Conduit Earmark Receipt on Schedule A, so that I can report my conduit earmark transactions.

Acceptance Criteria

Given I am a Committee Administrator editing an open Form 3X report And I am editing a Conduit Earmark Out sub-transaction on an open report

When I set the DATE to be in a future report Then the system will not display the popup for putting a date outside coverate dates (Note: system might need to display message if future report does not exist yet)

And the system will not change the MEMO ITEM to be different from the MEMO ITEM on the Schedule A Conduit Earmark Receipt

And the system will display the Conduit Earmark Out transaction on the future report

BA Notes:

Conduit Earmarks

Our original Conduit Earmark requirements from our transaction sessions (and what was implemented) is as follows:

• If the Conduit Earmark on Schedule A is marked as deposited, then CANNOT be a memo item, and the Earmark Out on schedule B will match.
• If the Conduit Earmark on Schedule A is marked as undeposited, then it MUST be a memo item, and the Earmark Out on schedule B will match.

 

Update from Ryan:

• Both A and B have to either be a memo item or not a memo item.  The issue with that is that it breaks the rules about having an entry that is not a memo item from showing up on a subsequent report.  In the case of a deposited conduit earmark that means both A and B entries are not memo items, but the B entry may have a date that should fall on the next report.  Remember, conduit earmarks need to be forwarded within 10 days, so the A entry (the receipt) can be on say 3/31 and the B entry (the forwarded disbursement) can be on 4/5.
• Ok - so are you saying that if there is a deposited conduit earmark, the earmark out should have the option to be a memo item? No, there should not be an option to make it a memo item.
• How would the "earmark out" on the subsequent report be reported? Would the parent need to be reported again? It should just appear on the subsequent report without the parent. Parent remains on Schedule A on previous report and child shows up on Schedule B on subsequent report.

 

Committees have ten days to forward the money. Sometimes that falls across report coverage dates. Schedule A would be on one report, and Schedule B would be on another report.

• Only need to show relevant transactions on relevant reports.
• Probably only this one, Ryan will check to see if there are others

QA Notes

null

DEV Notes

This will have two changes to current system processing:

The Conduit Earmark Out will ALWAYS have the same memo item value as the associated Conduit Earmark Receipt, so system will not change it to be Memo Item = Y if the date is outside of report coverage dates.

The Conduit Earmark transaction will be included in the future report and not listed in the current report (Question: What happens if the future report has not been created yet?)

Design

null

See full ticket and images here: FECFILE-1461

[exalate-issue-sync[bot]]

gregg.moreland commented: [~accountid:61b0b42cd5986c006a9e1c94] From my analysis here, we just need to allow a date on the OUT to be outside of the report coverage dates for the current report…and probably might need to ‘assign’ it to a future report, sort of how we assign Schedule E txns that are created in a Form 24. Ticket [https://fecgov.atlassian.net/browse/FECFILE-653|https://fecgov.atlassian.net/browse/FECFILE-653|smart-link] was created a while back to fix the popup error message. This ticket might eliminate the need for that bug ticket since this changes the design further.

[exalate-issue-sync[bot]]

akhorsand commented: [~accountid:712020:3243085d-540a-4657-ad08-d891487882d0] I’m a little confused on the wording of the ACs. Basically, all we’re saying is that it’s behaving as it currently does, with the only changes being: 1) there is no modal warning the user that the transaction is outside coverage dates and 2) that transaction gets automatically added to a future report?

If that’s the case, I’m worried about how specific this scenario is. It’s the only scenario outside loans/debts where we have a transaction being automatically added to a future report. We can build it, but I’m curious if there are other transactions this may apply to. Are there any others you can think of that we can ask about, or should we just ask about them in general?