Re: [lmi] Group premium quotes

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 02:25:35 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> But let's postpone any further code refinements here because the
GC> client's Compliance department is challenging this section, which means that
GC> some of these fields may be moved into a system-generated array (like the
GC> "Prepared date" and "Prepared by" section you've already coded), while 
others
GC> may be expunged, and perhaps this whole boxed "Summary" vanishes.

 So does this mean that I should wait until this is fully resolved before
submitting the patches? Or should I remove the box entirely in the initial
version? Or leave the problematic fields empty? I'm ready to do anything
except leaving the hardcoded values in the code, which is what I currently
have.

GC> > - Numbers in all 4 "Quarterly premium" columns.
GC> 
GC> Four new fields to be added to class LedgerInvariant. I could assign names
GC> now for your use, but I'd rather wait until the compliance review is 
complete
GC> in case any more columns are needed.

 FWIW the code is structured in a way to make adding (or otherwise
modifying) columns relatively simple. This is one of the things I struggled
with, I wanted to make this code as easy to maintain in the future as
possible because I had the impression that it might need to be changed, but
I'm not completely sure if I really achieved this goal...

GC> Oh...in case it's unclear, the "Quarterly" part of these headers isn't
GC> fixed text--instead, it's LedgerInvariant::ErMode, "Capitalized Thus"
GC> instead of its native lower case.

 No, I completely failed to see this, thanks a lot for telling me this,
I'll update the code soon.


GC> >  And, while not quite a field, I'd also like to ask which date format
GC> > should be used for the three places in which dates occur in the document:
GC> > 
GC> > - The report header in the top left (currently hardcoded as "%B %d, %Y").
GC> 
GC> I would prefer the OS-specific user default format--is that easy to do?

 Yes, this is actually the simplest thing to do because this is what
happens by default with wxDateTime (which I use freely in this code as it
uses wxDC and other wx classes anyhow). However I was almost certain that
this wasn't the right thing to do because this report is, presumably, used
not only on the machine that was used to generate it and it's not clear at
all why should the final report recipient see the dates in the format
preferred by the report author.

 Do we really want to do this?


GC> Perhaps they'll see the light and not choose the "Comments" treatment.

 I am still thinking of some way to provide the desired flexibility without
abusing the "Comments" field for it, but for now I didn't really find
anything obviously better. One thought I had was to allow using an extra
image file instead of putting the text there, which is certainly as
flexible as it gets, but it would also need to be completely static, i.e.
not even effective date (which I fill with the current date value) could be
dynamically generated, which is probably not acceptable.

 Regards,
VZ