Skip to content

Commit 8575fc9

Browse files
authored
Clarify current_education label and docs (#368) (#1733)
#368 suggested renaming current_education -> current_education_enrolment to distinguish enrolment from attainment. A full rename would break every dataset row, test YAML, API consumer (policyengine-app, household-api), and external user that passes current_education as input. Too disruptive for an issue whose actual ask is "make the enrolment-vs-attainment distinction explicit". Do the cheaper thing: improve the label to "Current education enrolment" and add a docstring that says it's enrolment status, not attainment, and points at highest_education for the latter. The variable name stays the same so no downstream breakage; the label is what users see in the API metadata and the docs.
1 parent 5d8617a commit 8575fc9

2 files changed

Lines changed: 7 additions & 1 deletion

File tree

changelog.d/368.md

Lines changed: 1 addition & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
1+
- Clarify the `current_education` label as "Current education enrolment" and add a docstring distinguishing it from `highest_education` (which captures attainment), so the variable's enrolment-vs-attainment semantics are explicit without an API-breaking rename.

policyengine_uk/variables/household/demographic/current_education.py

Lines changed: 6 additions & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -10,7 +10,12 @@ class current_education(Variable):
1010
possible_values = EducationType
1111
default_value = EducationType.NOT_IN_EDUCATION
1212
entity = Person
13-
label = "Current education"
13+
label = "Current education enrolment"
14+
documentation = (
15+
"Which stage of education the person is currently enrolled in (or "
16+
"NOT_IN_EDUCATION if none). This is enrolment status, not attainment "
17+
"— see `highest_education` for the highest completed stage."
18+
)
1419
definition_period = YEAR
1520

1621
def formula(person, period, parameters):

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)