Got "What does [user] get paid hourly?" when hourly is false, should be what currently appears if hourly is true "What does [user] get paid?"

Seems the show ifs are reversed

Also typo "What how much ..."

I think "User" in this label might be a typo.

Can use ADP / Workday as a good default, but this might vary a lot between jobs, especially between proprietary hour tracking software that different businesses use.

Use the Kiln framework to add at least one automated test to this repository

@kateleebarry @colarusso @CaroRob advised to allow addenda for the Indigency Supplement.

Specify federal tax fields. ex. withholding, or specify deductions.

Originally posted by @sroth88 in SuffolkLITLab/docassemble-AffidavitOfIndigencySupplement#7 (comment)

Should we specify the tax deductions more than the form does?

Currently, when doing a naive include of the fee waiver, you may end up with the case name being left blank because docket_numbers doesn't exist. We should check for existence explicitly, and also fall back to docket_number if docket_numbers doesn't exist.

"." should be "?"

check on the form to see which fields are large.

combine with addenda #36

to let the use be as descriptive as they want.

The jobs table looks like this:

generic object: ALItemizedJobList
table: x.table
rows: x
columns:
  - Title: |
      row_item.source
  - Employer: |
      row_item.employer.name if hasattr(row_item.employer.name, "first") else ""
  - Annual Gross Income: |
      currency(row_item.gross_total())
  - Annual Deductions: |
      currency(row_item.deduction_total())
edit:
  - source
  - employer.name.first
  - to_add.revisit
  - to_subtract.revisit
confirm: True

And doesn't take you to a page that can edit the number of hours worked.

The form needs to make sure that it is not taking an annual income from the user and dividing it into monthly income. The form's purpose is to get a snapshot of the user's current monthly income. Essentially, ask the user what their income was over the last 4 weeks and if that income will/has changed. The monthly income questions in prospective, not retrospective.

This will appear in the Job section and needs some attention to ask properly. Possibly, change the question to "How much do you expect to make in the next 30 days?"

Consider people that have lost their job recently, are in between jobs, don't know their exact income, or are paid by unconventional means.

• How to include
• How to pre-define values for fees (and where to find. E.g., https://www.mass.gov/info-details/housing-court-filing-fees#civil,-summary-process,-and-supplementary-process-fees-)
• how to turn on/off

Specifically regarding id: select fees waived:

• Legalese on screen could provide tenants with too much of an opportunity to request costs/odd inputs not covered
• Consider adding help question marks with explanations for options
• Consider disabling extra inputs unless attorney/paralegal

Link to issue in UpToCode: LemmaLegalConsulting/docassemble-HousingCodeChecklist#349

The referer URL was https://apps.suffolklitlab.org/run/indigency/

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/share/docassemble/local3.10/lib/python3.10/site-packages/flask/app.py", line 1484, in full_dispatch_request
    rv = self.dispatch_request()
  File "/usr/share/docassemble/local3.10/lib/python3.10/site-packages/flask/app.py", line 1469, in dispatch_request
    return self.ensure_sync(self.view_functions[rule.endpoint])(**view_args)
  File "/usr/share/docassemble/local3.10/lib/python3.10/site-packages/docassemble/webapp/server.py", line 6902, in index
    exec(list_collect_list + '._allow_appending()', user_dict)
  File "", line 1, in 
NameError: name 'other_parties' is not defined

Happened 12/31/2023, so recently. Not sure how it happened, but it seems to be an issue with the list collection screen in this interview where we get other_parties. Can't recreate it.

There are known UX problems with the "help" button on the same line as the "next" button

Remove from jobs list collect and put them in their own question page (no loop).
The interview instead should ask for taxes as a monthly snapshot. Make a separate question block.

@kateleebarry @CaroRob advised that the taxes and expenses are a prospective (forward looking) not retrospective. The taxes and expenses should show the court what the user expects to pay this month.

overrides SuffolkLITLab/docassemble-AffidavitOfIndigencySupplement#7

The last screen says you can click a send to court button but it doesn't
Variable being sought | download
Package version | 2.0.4
Filename | docassemble.ALAffidavitOfIndigency:data/questions/affidavit.yml

Added specific things for the T, biking, etc.

Should mention the differences between child education and child care. From the form it's not clear what they want, but they are separate.

What best describes you?

Person needing help

User feedback:

I didnt see a place to let the court or clerk know that this new case I just printed out the paperwork and it will be mailed out tomorrow 7-10-21 thats why I didnt know a docket # I dont have one yet thank you.

Question id: final download

Variable being sought: download
Package version | 0.0.17

Add the metadata needed to work with the new courtformsonline.org repo scanning tool (See SuffolkLITLab/courtformsonline.org#8)

What best describes you?

Person needing help

User feedback:

I need help finding a pro Bono

Question id: basic questions intro screen

Variable being sought: basic_questions_intro_screen
Package version | 0.0.17

"Tell us" is not our preferred language. Think of another way to ask about household member's employment.

Check this repository to see if it is still up to date

Might only be an issue for independently completing the affidavit but the initial flow is repetitive - user is asked if they are starting or responding twice

The form has a very general question about the user's property and only specifies that the form is also asking for real estate. We have been deciding whether or not to use checkboxes, and if so, which categories of property should we include? For now, we have an open text field that asks the user for their property, but that is far too general for a question that could include anything and everything a person owns.

See SuffolkLITLab/docassemble-MAPovertyScale#6 (comment)

Was a suggestion from @nonprofittechy.

Personally, I'm unsure. I feel like it's very likely that people are employed by individuals. Even if that individual has some shell business they operate from, will the individual always know what it is? It's not a lot more stuff on top for much more flexibility.

Because this is no longer filed separately by email, we can take out a lot of the extra screens that warned people against filing it on its own.

[@colarusso and I discussed at meeting today]