Re: [lmi] Special "split funds" supplemental report

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 01:10:19 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> File | New | Illustration
GC>   "Plan" tab:
GC>     "Policy": choose "sample2finra" [this is a finra-only report]
GC>     "Effective date": decrease year by one [to make it "inforce"]
GC>   "Inforce" tab:
GC>     "General account value": enter 10000
GC>     "Separate account value": enter 10000
GC> OK

 Great, thanks, this worked (well, it produced 3 full pages of numbers).

GC> >  Could you please let me know if you already know how to do it? If not,
GC> > I'll try to find it out myself, but it's not as simple as just a grep...
GC> 
GC> You'd have to figure out that "Effective date" must be more than
GC> <some delta> in the past, or else your attempts to enter 10000
GC> in those other two fields will produce helpful assertion failures.

 My problems had started earlier than that: I was searching for these
fields on the "Funds" page...

 BTW, I've been thinking since quite some time that having a "search"
control in this dialog wouldn't be unhelpful. Or do the actual users know
the UI on the back of their hands and don't need any help with navigating
it?

GC> > And, also, I think I did know how to test in split and non-split premiums
GC> > case before, but now I can't find even how to do this. Could you please
GC> > remind me how can I check the behaviour with SplitMinPrem being true and
GC> > not?
GC> 
GC> [Instead of "sample2finra" above...]
GC>   "Plan" tab:
GC>     "Policy": choose "sample2xyz" [which is also an "mce_finra" product]

 Thanks, this worked too! Could you please confirm that I've interpreted
the double negation (it was something along the line of "when SplitMinPrem
is not true, these two columns shouldn't be shown") in the original message
correctly and that sample2finra should show "Premium Outlay" while
"sample2xyz" should show "ER/EE Gross Payment", as they do now?

GC> >  Finally, a question about appearance: my finra_split_fund.mst template
GC> > currently looks like this, stripped of comments:
GC> > 
GC> > ---------------------------------- >8 
--------------------------------------
GC> > {{>finra_header_upper}}
GC> > <p align="center">Split Funds Detail</p>
GC> > {{>finra_header_lower}}
GC> > 
GC> > <br></br>
GC> > <br></br>
GC> > ---------------------------------- >8 
--------------------------------------
GC> > 
GC> > Does this look right or should I add/remove/change anything in it?
GC> 
GC> Couldn't it be identical to 'finra_supp.mst' (even if it needs to be
GC> a distinct file with its own name)?

 It doesn't actually need a distinct file, I just thought it would be
better to use a separate template because otherwise, i.e. without a unique
header, it would seem to be difficult to distinguish it from the reports
preceding and following it. But the file finra_split_fund.mst could, of
course, be made identical (modulo comments) to finra_supp.mst. Or we could
just reuse the latter file directly, if you don't find it too confusing.

 Please let me know what would you prefer and I'll make a PR with my
changes tomorrow (even if it looks simple, I'd prefer not to make it
without having some sleep first).

 Thanks in advance,
VZ