Request No. | 2016-15 |
---|---|
Date of Request | 7.14.16 |
Requester | Fullerton College Residency Review Committee |
Application(s) | Standard Application |
Section / Page | Area B Residency Logic |
Steering Approval Status | Pending ApprovalAPPROVED 9.30.16 |
Steering Hearing Date | 7.14.16 |
Proposed Change to Download File | TBD |
Proposed Change to Residency Logic | YES |
JIRA Ticket | OPENAPPLY-3192 |
Table of Contents |
---|
Problem / Issue
Residents will not be affected and they will continue to be classified correctly,Colleges are reporting multiple instances of problems with the residency calculation <residency status> when students respond “yes” to the “Outwth the Area B logic regarding students who report out-of-state Taxes” question on the Residency page. According to the Area B logic, all four of the “out-of-state-indicator” questions must be “No” (or =0) in step 1 to prevent being classified as a non-resident (= “B0”).
Proposed Solution
Revise Step One in the Area B residency logic to ensure that California residents who indicate an out-of-state activity are Classified as B2 and trigger a new Integrity Flag (30) to alert Admissions of this response. This will ensure that these students end up as "B2 - Possible Residents" or "B0 - Non-Residents" depending on how they answer the next 4 questions.
On the current Area B step-by-step logic table, Step 1 is identifiying the user as a "B0Non-Resident if they have indicated any out-of-state activities within the past 2 years. However, there are a number of studetns who are California residents, but have paid taxes outside of California or filed a lawsuit, etc.These student do not have any other non-California responses and therefore shoudl not be set as B0 all the way through.
By changing Step 1 as shown below:
activities but are still being classifed as "Residents" in the Area B logic and the overall Residency Status calculation. Colleges are requesting that the logic be revised in Step 1 to classify these applicants as B2 (and set a flag) to ensure they are reaching Step 4 with the correct classification, which is the poiint in the logic that separates the residents from the "possible residents" and the "non-residents". .
Proposed Solution
The solution is to change Step 1 from: "Set Class B0 - Non-resident > Go to Step 4" to "Set Class B2 > Set flag (30 > Go to Step 2" which is the point where California residency for 2years is identified. If the answer is "No" at step 2, the "B0" classification is then set, and the logic advances to step 3 and 4. At step 4, unless the student with the "B0" classification is determined to be a current or former Foster Youth, they keep the "B0" classification and skip to the end for final B0 classification. If the user is a Foster Youth, the class is set back to "B2", a flag is set, and they advance through the rest of the logic with that classification.
Expand | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
By changing Step 1 (as specified below) and adding the extra step between 11 and 12,, we believe students will be calculated correctly depending on their true status, and:
|
|
|
we will catch the
|
|
Extensive testing has been documented in a table of use cases and edge case results will be created and documented cases to ensure that this addition does the changes do not "break" any other step of steps in the logic pertaining to "B1 - Residents" and/or "B2 - Possible Residents".
Requirements Summary
30
Applicant has 1) filed taxes; 2) registered to vote; 3) attended college; or 4) filed a lawsuit - outside of California within the last 2 years.
ca_outside_tax = 1 OR
ca_outside_voted = 1 OR
ca_outside_college = 1 OR
ca_outside_lawsuit = 1
Use Case Test Matrix
The goal of the Use Case Test Matrix is to ensure that all possible scenarios are tested and PASSED logic before changing/updating the Area B residency logic. These tests are used against the proposed changes to the B Logic.
title | Test Use Case #1: Residents |
---|
Test Use Case #1: Residents (B1)
Objective: Ensure Residents are Classified Correctly (B1)
Expected Results: B1
Actual Results:
Do out-of-state indicators support intent?
ca_outside_tax = 0 AND
ca_outside_voted = 0 AND
ca_outside_college = 0 AND
ca_outside_lawsuit = 0
Has the applicant lived in California for two years prior to RDD?
Has the applicant been resident in CA for over a year prior to RDD?
Is the applicant a current or former foster youth, under age 20, and now residing in California?
Has the applicant completed HS outside CA in last 2 years?
Is the applicant in military with non CA home of record?
Is the applicant under the care and control of a guardian, under 19 and unmarried?
Is the applicant’s current address outside of California?
Is the applicant’s permanent address outside of California?
Is the applicant under 19 as of RDD with last high school out-of-state?
Was the applicant enrolled in an out-of-state college with a ‘To Date’ within the year previous to the term start date?
Has Class “B2” been set?
If Yes, set class B2
If No, set class B1
title | Test Use Case #2: Possible Residents (B2) |
---|
Test Use Case #2: Possible Residents (B2)
Objective: Ensure Possible Residents are Classified Correctly (B2)
# | Description | Notes |
---|---|---|
ALERT !! TYLER - Lets discuss this before I add any further rquirements or specifications. I know we have identified the correct issue, but I want to get your recommendation for where the missing step should be added. It may need to be added to Step 2 or 5, instead of at the end (Step 12). Talk to Patty before starting this work. | ||
1 | Add a new step 12 to the Area B residency logic (between steps 11 and 12) to identify students who had "Class B0" set in Step 1 of the logic and maintained that classification all the way through the remaining steps of the logic. Move the current Step 12 down one step to 13, and add in the new step 12 immediately above it. (See example in Proposed Technical Requirements table below). There are no other proposed changes to any other steps. The new Step 12 will read as follows: NEW STEP 12: "Has Class B0 been set?" IF Yes, set Class B0; If NO, go to step 13. NOTE: After adding in new Step 12, the old step 12 is now Step 13. There is no change to that step, which reads: "Has Class B2 been set?" If Yes, set Class B2; If NO, set B1. : | |
2 | Run tests to ensure new Step 12 does not negatively affect any other step within the Area B: Stay and Intent logic. Create a test case matrix to record test results from a variety of use case scenarios, including edge cases. Post the Test Case Matrix as part of the Release Notes in Public Documentation for colleges to use as reference. | |
3 | Update documentation:
| |
4 | Update the Area B Flowchart in Appendix A: Submission Calculation Service of the the CCCApply Standard Application Data Dictionary to reflect new step if necessary. |
Proposed Technical Specifications
Update Area B of the residency algorithm to change the action in Step 1 if the user indicates Yes to any of the four "out-of-state" indicator questions (as indicated in the Data Elements & Logic Statement in Step 1).Revise logic in the "If No" column of Step 1 as follows:
Step 1:
Evaluation Statement: NO CHANGE
Data Elements & Logic: NO CHANGE
"If Yes" Column: NO CHANGE
Step
Evaluation Statement
Data Elements & Logic
If Yes
If No
1
Do out-of-state indicators support intent?
ca_outside_tax = 0 AND
ca_outside_voted = 0 AND
ca_outside_college = 0 AND
ca_outside_lawsuit = 0
Go to step 2
Class B0
(go to step 2)
Proposed change:
Class B2
(set flag 81)
(go to step 2)
Add new Integrity Flag #30, which will trigger if answer to Step 1 is "No":
1 | Change the logic in the "IF NO" column of Step 1 of the Area B logic for applicants who reports one or more of the four "out-of-state" indicator(s) on the Residency page of the standard application. By making this correction in Step 1, this establishes the correct sequence of events for "possible residents" and "non-residents", which are ultimately defined in Step 4. NOTE: The out-of-state indicators pertain to applicants who paid taxes, or registered to vote, or attended college, or filed a lawsuit, outside of California, within the last 2 years. |
2 | Add a new Integrity Flag 30 to Table F: Integrity Flags which will be triggered in Step 1 IF the user has any 'out-of-state' indicators - regardless of their final Area B calculation. In other words, whether the applicant is classified as a "possible resident" or a "non-resident" in the final calculation, the flag will be set for their out-of-state activity - which identifies them to Admissions (which is the purpose of integrity flags.) |
NOTE: Create new data field for new integrity flag #30 and add to the database. A CTRLCENTER and REPORTS tickets will be created to add the new flag field to the Rules area in the Administrator & added to the integrity flag folder in the Standard area of the report center. Must be added. Integrity flags are two‐digit numeric codes, as defined in Table E. They are stored and downloaded in data element ‘residency: res_int_flags’, a string that can contain up to 26 flags. Refer to the CCCApply Standard Application Data Dictionary v.2016.1 for more information about this data element. | |
3 | Revise the "If NO" column for 'non-residents" in Step 4 to include: "and go to Step 12". This is being added as a safety net for any possible edge-case that might slip through the first four steps of the logic and end up at the final calculation with the B2 calculation. |
4 | Add new step 12 to the logic which will serve as additional insurance that "non-residents" are classified as "B0" in the final calculation. |
5 | Run tests to ensure the revision to Step 1 and the new Step 12 does not negatively impact any other steps in the Area B logic. Create a test case matrix to record test results from a variety of use case scenarios, including edge cases. Post the Test Case Matrix as part of the Release Notes in Public Documentation for colleges to use as reference. |
6 | Update documentation:
|
7 | Update the Area B Flowchart in Appendix A: Submission Calculation Service of the the CCCApply Standard Application Data Dictionary to reflect revised Step 1. |
Proposed Technical Specifications
NOTE: All of the proposed changes to the Area B logic pertain to the "If NO" column only. There are no changes to the "If Yes" columns, other than the addition of the new Step 12 (which is a completely new step with all new columns).
- REVISE Step 1 of the Area B of the residency algorithm to change the action if the user indicates Yes to any of the four "out-of-state" indicator questions (as indicated in the Data Elements & Logic Statement in Step 1).
Change the logic in the "IF NO" column of Step 1 of the Area B logic from::
Step 1:- Change the logic in the "IF NO" column of Step 1 of the Area B logic from:
"Set B0 - go to step 2"
to
"Set Class B2 and set flag 30 and go to step 2" ,
IF
the applicant reports one or more of the four "out-of-state" indicator(s) in the application.
NOTE: The out-of-state indicators include: paid taxes, or registered to vote, or attended college, or filed a lawsuit, outside of California within the last 2 years.
- Change the logic in the "IF NO" column of Step 1 of the Area B logic from:
- Ensure the logic also advances the "If NO" column in Step 1 to Step 2 (which is critical to determine if the user has lived in CA for 2 yrs or not).
Create and add a new data downloadable field for new Integrity Flag 30 to the residency table in the submitted application database: integrity_fg_30.
a. Add "integrity_fg_30" to the download client for the standard application only.
b. Add "integrity_fg_30" to the submitted application "Rules" area in the Administrator (a separate JIRA has been created for this task.)
c. Add "integrity_fg_30" to the Education section of the Submitted Application data domain in the Report Center.NOTE: Integrity flags are two‐digit numeric codes, as defined in Table E. They are stored and downloaded in data element ‘residency: res_int_flags’, a string that can contain up to 26 flags. Refer to the CCCApply Standard Application Data Dictionary v.2016.1 for more information about this data element.
Add New Integrity Flag 3030
Applicant has reported one or more "out-of-state" indicators: 1) filed taxes; 2) registered to vote; 3) attended college; or, 4) filed a lawsuit - outside of California within the last 2 years.
ca_outside_tax = 1 AND/OR
ca_outside_voted = 1 AND/OR
ca_outside_college = 1 AND/OR
ca_outside_lawsuit = 1
Revise the "IF NO" column in Step 4 to include "go to step 12". The logic in the "If NO" column would read: "Set Class B0 and go to step 12"
(B0 = Non-Resident for Area B).
NOTE: Step 4 is the point in the logic that determines if a user is a Non-Resident. Prior to step 4, the user would either have a Class B2 set, or no class set at all. Step 4 is the point in the logic that asks if the user "is a current or former foster youth and residing in California and under age 20."
"IF Yes then "Set Class B2 and set flag 70 (foster youth) and go to step 5";
OR
"If NO, then "Set Class B0 and go to step 12"
NOTE: There is no change to the "If yes" column in Step 4 (set Class B2, set flag 70, and go to step 5).
- ADD NEW STEP 12 to the Area B logic - which would serve as an additional final "Non-Resident, Class B0" classification point, just in case an edge case slips past step 4 (and the user isn't reclassified with B2 along the way). By adding this new step between step 11 and 12, we have a safety net in place for Non-Residents.
The new step 12 would read:
"Has Class B0 been set?"
If Yes, then "Set Class B0 and END the logic calculation"
OR
If No, then, "Go to step 13"
New Step 12 and 13 looks like this:
Step | Evaluation Statement | Data & Logic | If Yes | If No |
---|---|---|---|---|
12 | "Has class B0 been set?" | Class B0 | Set Class B0 and END logic (Non-resident) | Go to Step 13 |
13 | "Has class B2 been set?" | Class B2 | Set Class B2 (Possible Resident) | Set Class B1 (Resident) |
Table of Logic Changes
*** CURRENT LOGIC *** | PROPOSED CHANGE | ||||
Step | Evaluation Statement | Data Elements & Logic | If Yes | If No | IF NO |
1 | Do out-of-state indicators support intent? | ca_outside_tax = 0 AND ca_outside_voted = 0 AND ca_outside_college = 0 AND ca_outside_lawsuit = 0 | Go to step 2 |
| Set Class B2 (set new flag 30) (go to step 2) |
2 | Has the applicant lived in California for two years prior to RDD? | ca_res_2_years = 1 | Go to step 5 | Go to step 3 | NO CHANGE |
3 | Has the applicant been resident in CA for over a year prior to RDD? | ca_date_current ! = null AND ca_date_current < RDD minus 1 year | Class B2 | Go to step 4 | NO CHANGE |
4 | Is the applicant a current or former foster youth, under age 20, and now residing in California? | foster_youth_status is != 0 AND RDD minus Birthdate < 20 years | Class B2 |
| Set Class B0 AND (go to step 12) Note: Setting Class B0 here overrides (changes) the B2, if previously set |
No changes to Steps 5 through 11 | |||||
NEW STEP 12 | "Has Class B0 been set?" | Class B0 | Set Class B0 and END logic | Go to Step 13 | ADD NEW STEP 12 |
13 | "Has Class B2 been set?" | Class B2 | Set Class B2 | Set Class B1 | Move this step down one step (from 12 to 13) |
Use Case Test Matrix
Expand | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Test Use Case #1: Residents (B1)Objective: Ensure Residents are Classified Correctly (B1) Expected Results: B1 NOTES: With the new logic, the user answers Yes in Step 1 and goes to step 2. In step 2, she answers Yes and skips to step 5. At this point, the user has NO classification set at all. She has no out-of-state activities or issues, so she answers NO to every question and ends up at Step 12. Step 12 asks, "Has B0 been set?" NO, so go to step 13. Step 13 asks, "Has B2 been set?" NO. So, set class "B1" and end logic. B1 - resident.
|
Expand | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Test Use Case #2: Possible Residents (B2)User Scenario: User has paid taxes in Oregon in 2015, but has resided in California for 2 years (Yes in Step 2). They attended high school in California, and their current and permanent addresses are in California. They have no other flags set. Expected Behavior: User should be classified as a "B2 - Possible Resident" NOTES: B2 is set in Step 1 because of out-of-state activity, and new flag 30 is triggered; therefore, even if the user has been in California for 2 years (Step 2) and skips over Step 4 (the defining step to determine "B0 - Non-Resident"), this user will reach Step 13 with a "B2" set. This is the key to a correct classification. With the old logic, the user would get classified as "B0" in step 1, and then hit Step 2 - where they would answer Yes, I have lived in CA for 2years - and then skip over Step 4 (based on the flow of the logic). If they cruise through the rest of the logic with a B0, which changed to a "Resident" in the final calculation (using the old logic). Test Use Case #3: Non-Residents (B0)Objective: Ensure Non-Residents are Classified Correctly (B0)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expand | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Expand | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Test Use Case #3: Non-Residents (B0)Objective: Ensure Non-Residents are Classified Correctly (B0) User Scenario: User is age 21, paid taxes in Oregon in 2015, arrived in California in January 2016, and is not a foster youth.
|
No | go to step 6 | No | Should not make it this far in the logic since the class was set to B0 in Step 4 and should have ended there.
NO | B0 | No | go to step 8 | No | Should not make it this far in the logic since the class was set to B0 in Step 4 and should have ended there.
NO | B0 | No | go to step 12 | No | Should not make it this far in the logic since the class was set to B0 in Step 4 and should have ended there. | 12
If No, set class B1 NO | B0 | NO | | | Should not make it this far in the logic since the class was set to B0 in Step 4 and should have ended there
|
BUG Case Matrix
The table below demonstrates the problem we are having with the Area B logic with this specific Use Case (California Resident for 2 Yrs who has OOS Indicator)
Identifying Issues with Current Logic
Expand | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Use Case 1: California Resident for 2 years, but Paid Taxes Outside of California
|
Expand | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Problem #2 with Current Logic: OOS Indicators are YES, but Has Been in CA for 1 Year. (Expected results: B2 - Possible Resident. Actual rsults: B2 - Possible Resident)
|
Expand | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Problem #3: Foster Youth who moved to California recently, and indicated one or more OOS indicators.
|
|
|
|
Current Logic Specifications
CurrentAnchor |
---|
|
Table B. Outline of Area B (Stay and Intent) Criteria in Residency Algorithm
Intent) Criteria in Residency Algorithm
Supporting Documentation
The table below shows the existing Area B logic (columns 1 - 5) AND Proposed New Logic in Column 6. Use column 6 to test use cases with new logic.
Step | Evaluation Statement | Data Elements & Logic | If Yes | If No | Proposed New Logic for "If NO" Column |
1 | Do out-of-state indicators support intent? | ca_outside_tax = 0 AND ca_outside_voted = 0 AND ca_outside_college = 0 AND ca_outside_lawsuit = 0 | Go to step 2 | Class |
B2 set flag 30 |
go to step 2 |
Class B2 and set flag 30 and go to step 2 | |||||
2 | Has the applicant lived in California for two years prior to RDD? | ca_res_2_years = 1 | Go to step 5 | Go to step 3 | Go to step 3 |
3 | Has the applicant been resident in CA for over a year prior to RDD? | ca_date_current ! = null AND ca_date_current < RDD minus 1 year | Class B2 | Go to step 4 | Go to step 4 |
4 | Is the applicant a current or former foster youth, under age 20, and now residing in California? | foster_youth_status is != 0 AND RDD minus Birthdate < 20 years | Class B2 |
) and | Class B0 end | Set Class B0 AND (go to step |
Class B0 end
12) | |||||
5 | Has the applicant completed HS outside CA in last 2 years? | education: hs_state’ ! = CA AND education: hs_comp_date RDD minus 2 years | Class B2 | Go to step 6 | Go to step 6 |
6 | Is the applicant in military with non CA home of record? | Military_status = 2 AND (military_home_state != CA OR Military_legal_residence = CA) | Class B2 | Go to step 7 | Go to step 7 |
7 | Is the applicant under the care and control of a guardian, under 19 and unmarried? | ‘over19OrMarried’= 0 AND ‘guardianOrParentRelation= G | Class B2 | Go to step 8 | Go to step 8 |
8 | Is the applicant’s current address outside of California? | ‘Mailing address – state’ != CA | Class B2 | Go to step 9 | Go to step 9 |
9 | Is the applicant’s permanent address outside of California? | ‘Permanent address– state’ != CA | Class B2 | Go to step 10 | Go to step 10 |
10 | Is the applicant under 19 as of RDD with last high school out-of-state? | RDD minus19 years > personal_info: birthdate AND education: hs_state != CA | Class B2 | Go to step 11 | Go to step 11 |
11 | Was the applicant enrolled in an out-of-state college with a ‘To Date’ within the year previous to the term start date? | In any row of colleges_attended table: | Class B2 |
) and | Go to step 12 | Go to step 12 | ||
12 | Has B0 been set? | Class "B0" | Set Class B0 and END logic | If go to step |
13 | New Go to step |
13 |
13 | Has Class “B2” been set? | Class “B2” | Set Class B2 | Set Class B1 |
Notes
This issue was reviewed by the CCCApply Residency Review Sub-Committee on 7-14-16. A committee of residency experts, including Michael Quaioit from the Chancellor's Office, reviewed several examples whether the logic was incorrectly calculating the final area B calculation and proposed the solution recommendation listed above.
UPDATE: Though the sub-committee identified the issue, it was not the most efficient proposed resolution to the issue. Patty met with Tyler to talk through a more appropriate (and accurate) fix to this issue which is to address the problem where it occurs...in Step 1. Instead of setting Class B0 if the user does have OOS indicator(s), set Class B2 here and set a new flag (30) to indicate to the college that the user has one or more OOS indicators. The B2 class will then follow the user through to step 2, 3, and 4. If the student should be a NON-RESIDENT (B0), then this will be caught in Step 4 IF the user is not a foster youth. See Test Case Matrix (not to be confused with the BUG Case Matrix).
Set Class B1 |
Notes
This issue was reviewed by the CCCApply Residency Review Sub-Committee on 7-14-16. A committee of residency experts, including Michael Quaioit from the Chancellor's Office, reviewed several examples and proposed adding a new step to the logic (between 11 and 12) to validate non-resident status before the final calculation.
7-19-16: However, after reviewing the proposed logic with the developer, additional requirements were identified (revising the If No column in Step 1 and adding a flag). The proposed requirements and change specs above reflect the final proposed logic changes.
For testing, use the Current Area B Logic Table, which includes a new "If No" column.