Feat: Grand calculated summary value sources

[katie-gardner]

What is the context of this PR?

This PR adds support for using Grand Calculated Summaries as value sources. It goes alongside the corresponding validator PR which allows for this within a schema.

To do this, value_source_resolver has been updated and the existing method _resolve_calculated_summary_value_source has been used for grand calculated summaries too, as it worked directly out of the box without GCS needing its own. For clarity, some parameters have been renamed

placeholder transforms also needed to be updated so the custom logic for decimal places applies on a non grand calculated summary page that references a grand calculated summary value

Two schemas updated with a GCS inside and outside of a repeat to cover both cases, and functional tests updated accordingly

Note

As with validator, this builds on the PR for GCS in repeating sections, so the PR has been pointed at main for the test suite, and now pointed at that branch for review, it will be merged into main on approval

How to review

Use test_grand_calculated_summary_inside_repeating_section.json and test_grand_calculated_summary_repeating_answers.json to test and make sure the grand calculated summary values are piped in correctly. In particular on the repeating answers one, make sure that if you remove calculated summaries from the path using the options in section 2 that the GCS being used as a value source is correctly updated.

Checklist

• New static content marked up for translation
• Newly defined schema content included in eq-translations repo

[katie-gardner]

Grand Calculated Summary: Ability to use as a Value source (3 SP)

[MebinAbraham]

I see that "dependencies" weren't handled, was that on purpose?. Right now, GCS values that aren't on the path would still be used. If you check for the reference to calculated_summary in the code base, you can see all the places we need to update to handle dependencies.

However, regardless, we should do it in a separate PR/card, to make the review easier. The card does mention only handling GCS values that are on the path, however we probably didn't I think it through and the sizing on the card should be higher even if tackled in a separate PR.

I think this PR to add the initial feature is good. We can decide whether we do it as part of the same card via multiple PR or whether we create a separate card for the dependency work.

[katie-gardner]

I see that "dependencies" weren't handled, was that on purpose?. Right now, GCS values that aren't on the path would still be used. If you check for the reference to calculated_summary in the code base, you can see all the places we need to update to handle dependencies.

However, regardless, we should do it in a separate PR/card, to make the review easier. The card does mention only handling GCS values that are on the path, however we probably didn't I think it through and the sizing on the card should be higher even if tackled in a separate PR.

I think this PR to add the initial feature is good. We can decide whether we do it as part of the same card via multiple PR or whether we create a separate card for the dependency work.

Ah no, not intentional, I had read it as grand calculated summaries should only include CS on the path just as CS only includes answers on the path, which it already does, missed the other case, follow up for this sounds good 👍

[MebinAbraham]

Happy with the initial build.

Note for other reviewers: Dependencies have not been implemented in this PR, so you may get an answer not on the path, and validation won't get revisted etc.