Debt - should we consider only the long-term amount, like we did before the recent fixes?

[kocielnik]

$ curl -s https://assets.msn.com/service/Finance/QuoteSummary\?apikey\=0QfOX3Vn51YCzitbLaRkTTBadtWpgTN8NZLW0C1SEM\&ocid\=finance-utils-peregrine\&cm\=en-us\&it\=web\&scn\=MSFT\&ids\=a226gh\&intents\=Quotes,Exchanges,QuoteDetails\&wrapodata\=false | jq . > out.json
$ < out.json jq '.[0]["equity"]["analysis"]["annualStatements"]["2009"]["liabilities"]'
5.6787
$ < out.json jq '.[0]["equity"]["analysis"]["annualStatements"]["2009"]["longTermDebt"]'
0.0

Seems it would only take a change in a single label.

Something to pay attention to: I haven't yet checked if the unit of the label longTermDebt matches the unit for liabilities (thousands, millions, etc.).

[kocielnik]

Proposed changes: #75

[mrhappyasthma]

I think using long term debt is probably fine. It better matches what Phil Town mentioned in Rule #1, from what I recall.

Although we should also update the text label in the HTML template

[kocielnik]

It better matches what Phil Town mentioned in Rule #1

It turns out Phil has his own Toolbox (surprise, surprise), and this toolbox (https://ruleonetoolbox.com/) also uses long-term debt specifically.

I consider this an additional confirmation we're heading in the right direction.

[mrhappyasthma]

Fixed