Fix a couple of vectorization strategies.

[hmgaudecker]

Just a couple of things I noticed while roaming the codebase related to TTSIM #53.

Not sure about whether ist_kind_in_einstandsgemeinschaft is correct as is or it should have more conditions, though? We can leave that corner case for #738 though.

[read-the-docs-community]

Documentation build overview

📚 gettsim | 🛠️ Build #29447308 | 📁 Comparing ec0e38d against latest (7f49854)

🔍 Preview build

Show files changed (3 files in total): 📝 3 modified | ➕ 0 added | ➖ 0 deleted

File	Status
how_to_guides/modifications_of_policy_environments.html	📝 modified
tutorials/simple_example.html	📝 modified
tutorials/visualizing_the_system.html	📝 modified

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[MImmesberger]

Not sure about whether ist_kind_in_einstandsgemeinschaft is correct as is or it should have more conditions, though?

As long as we consider Grundsicherung im Alter only (and not the other SGB XII benefits), it should yield the correct results. Once we implement SGB XII benefits for younger individuals, we need to fix it.

[hmgaudecker]

So we should leave it as a placeholder?

[MImmesberger]

Not sure what you mean with placeholder. Recipients of Grundsicherung im Alter get additional money if they care for underage children (so we need it here, not a placeholder). The implementation silently assumes that no transfer recipient is married to a minor. But ofc, it would be better to do something similar as with ist_kind_in_bedarfsgemeinschaft.

We should note somewhere that children in GETTSIM are defined as individuals (below a certain age) that have a caretaker and are not caretakers themselves (as opposed to children just being minors).

[hmgaudecker]

I was trying to say that we would not really want a function alter <= 17 with the name ist_kind_in_einstandsgemeinschaft, but with what you write we can leave it as is.