[lmi-commits] [lmi] master 34aca34 7/8: Resolve a marked not-a-defect: minimum WD in solves [277]

[Greg Chicares]

branch: master
commit 34aca342c515e07ebb19c0b9f042637bfb7a1dc9
Author: Gregory W. Chicares <gchicares@sbcglobal.net>
Commit: Gregory W. Chicares <gchicares@sbcglobal.net>

    Resolve a marked not-a-defect: minimum WD in solves [277]
    
    Withdrawals below a product-specific minimum are not allowed. Formerly,
    if a withdrawal solve transgressed that minimum, the solve would fail,
    and no withdrawal was allowed. Now: same outcome. The difference is
    that formerly, the solve sought a root in a range such as
      [0, 999999999.99]
    and now it restricts consideration to a narrower range such as
      [500, 999999999.99]
    but in either case the monthiversary code changes any withdrawal that
    is less than the minimum (500, say) to zero.
    
    This change treats withdrawals the same way as specified amount, and
    that's concinnous, at least. But that raises a deeper question: is it
    better to use a known contextual lower bound, or to use zero?
---
 ihs_avsolve.cpp | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/ihs_avsolve.cpp b/ihs_avsolve.cpp
index 874ab7e..a2f8f25 100644
--- a/ihs_avsolve.cpp
+++ b/ihs_avsolve.cpp
@@ -418,7 +418,6 @@ currency AccountValue::Solve
             break;
         case mce_solve_wd:
             {
-            // TODO ?? Is minimum wd respected?
             solve_set_fn = &AccountValue::SolveSetWD;
             decimals     = round_withdrawal().decimals();
             if(yare_input_.WithdrawToBasisThenLoan)
@@ -432,6 +431,7 @@ currency AccountValue::Solve
                     ,round_loan      ().decimals()
                     );
                 }
+            lower_bound = dblize(MinWD);
             }
             break;
         }