Update desk review workbook for 2024 model #23
Conversation
| flag_land_gte_95_percentile, flag_bldg_gte_95_percentile, | ||
| flag_land_gte_95_percentile, | ||
| flag_land_value_capped, flag_prior_near_to_pred_unchanged, | ||
| flag_pred_initial_to_final_changed, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
flag_bldg_gte_95_percentile and flag_pred_initial_to_final_changed appear not to be present anymore in assessment_pin, so I removed them from the workbook flags. They also didn't seem to be present in the workbook template anyway.
| select(meta_pin10, building_coord) | ||
|
|
||
| pin_sheet_name <- "PIN Detail" | ||
| bldg_sheet_name <- "Buildings" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This sheet used to be called Building (PIN10), but unfortunately as I discovered when updating the res model, sheet names can't have spaces if we want to link to them via between-sheet hyperlink formulas.
| @@ -341,45 +397,25 @@ upload_data_prepped <- assessment_pin %>% | |||
| select(meta_year, meta_pin, meta_card_num, meta_lline_num), | |||
| by = c("meta_year", "meta_pin") | |||
| ) %>% | |||
| mutate(meta_pin10 = str_sub(meta_pin, 1, 10)) %>% | |||
| group_by(meta_pin10, meta_tieback_proration_rate) %>% | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By my reading, the group_by statements are no longer necessary in this query, since we don't need to report pred_pin10_final_fmv_bldg; but I could be wrong!
misc/desk_review_template.xlsx
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's hard to see in the diff, but I made the following changes to this template:
- Added column groups with colors and borders to both sheets to match the res workbook
- Added two columns for non-arm's-length sale flag types
- Tweaked the width of the
AddressandMunicipalitycolumns to better fit the data - Added
Land Val. >= 95th Percentilecolumn to theFlagssection of thePIN Detailsheet, since this attribute was already present in theassessment_pinquery but not being output to the sheet correctly - Moved
Condo Unit S. F.column from theFlagsgroup to theCharacteristicsgroup (this seems like it was previously a mistake, since the underlying variable ischar_unit_sfand doesn't include theflag_prefix like the rest of the flags do) - Recreated the final tweaks from Add final tweaks to desk review workbook based on Valuations feedback model-res-avm#213 in this pipeline
| # Handle a rare edge case where neighborhoods span multiple townships | ||
| # and so introduce duplicate pin10s; more details here: | ||
| # https://github.com/ccao-data/data-architecture/issues/275 | ||
| distinct(meta_pin10) %>% |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you think it's OK to leave this bandaid in here for now, or do we need to spend some time resolving the root problem?
| @@ -244,6 +341,13 @@ for (town in unique(assessment_pin_prepped$township_code)) { | |||
| writeFormula( | |||
| wb, pin_sheet_name, | |||
| assessment_pin_filtered$meta_pin, | |||
| startCol = 1, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We need to specify startCol in these formulas now, since there are two of them; otherwise, the second formula clobbers the first one (which is confusing API behavior, but it's what we have to work with).
The previous iteration of the note was not quite correct, implying that the flag had to do with the 95th percentile of land _value_ instead of land _square footage_.
This PR updates the
exportstage and the desk review template to work with the 2024 condo model. In the process, we also update the iasWorld export to make sure the format matches the new specification for this year.This PR represents the condo equivalent of ccao-data/model-res-avm#199, ccao-data/model-res-avm#206, ccao-data/model-res-avm#209, and ccao-data/model-res-avm#213.