Add a replacement cost field to the tools model

[arakla]

This would allow binder to actually automatically charge orgs for lost tools at the end of Carnival.

The reason it needs to be per tool is because we don't always buy the same brand/type and we charge org the cost of an exact replacement of possible.

That being said, the amount could be filled in by tool type and then adjusted if necessary, if we want to do that.

[pkoenig10]

+1 for tool types. Having the replacement costs on individual tools is a maintainability nightmare. Often when tools are added to Binder we don't have the cost readily available. I think most tools of a given type are similar enough in cost where we can just assign an average value to the tool type.

[arakla]

The reason I said tools is because this year there have been tools of the
same type where one version/brand is better and double the cost of another
or just significantly more then another.

In terms of maintainability, it isn't necessarily a nightmare because of a
few reasons:

• it is only needed if lost or damaged
• if a price is missing the treasurer (or whoever is approving charges) can
  look it up when doing that, the way I did for >20-30 different types and
  brands of tools this year

On May 6, 2016 9:27 AM, "Patrick Koenig" notifications@github.com wrote:

+1 for tool types. Having the replacement costs on individual tools is a
maintainability nightmare. Often when tools are added to Binder we don't
have the cost readily available. I think most tools of a given type are
similar enough in cost where we can just assign an average value to the
tool type.

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub

[pkoenig10]

This is entirely predicated on the fact that Binder's data persists between years, which is currently not the case.

Also we're going to have to populate this at some point. I don't really see the benefit of doing it before we need to. The only difference between looking up the prices for every tool now, and looking up prices for tools when they break, is that we'll end up looking up a bunch of prices we don't need.

This also sort of discriminates orgs if they happen to check out a tool that is more expensive than other variants (ie if its the only one left). Obviously the tools are different prices but I think in the interest of seeming fair, having a single price for a broken tool of each type is better. We can even put the price higher than the lowest tool price of that type. It doesn't necessarily have to directly correspond to the cost, its just a fixed price that we say is the cost of losing or breaking tools of this type.