Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Connecting web applications #404

Open
jdebacker opened this issue Mar 8, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

Connecting web applications #404

jdebacker opened this issue Mar 8, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@jdebacker
Copy link

@hdoupe I enjoyed your demo day talk today and it rekindled a thought I've had about connecting the tax policy models on C/S.

Just as you passed reforms from one model to another in your demo day, could it be possible to create a set of "Run with..." buttons on the results pages of models? E.g., on the Tax-Brain result page, one could do "Run with CCC" or "Run with OG-USA". Clicking the button would bring one to the simulation page of CCC or OG-USA with the IIT+Payroll tax parameters used in the Tax-Brain run pre-filled. One could then adjust other parameters (e.g., business tax parameters in CCC) and then run the simulation.

It seems that the C/S API should make this somewhat easy and I'd like to have a go at it. I'd just need some more instruction about how one could modify the results page to add a "Run with..." button.

@hdoupe
Copy link
Contributor

hdoupe commented Mar 9, 2021

Thanks @jdebacker. I like your idea to add a "Run with..." button. While there isn't an explicit html output type yet, you can use the table output to return HTML so that one of the outputs is a button.

One option is to send the user over to a page in the Stitch app that looks like:


Create Simulation from PSLmodels/Tax-Brain # 1234

  • Run with PSLmodels/Cost-of-Capital-Calculator
  • Run with PSLmodels/Tax-Cruncher
  • Run with PSLmodels/OG-USA

[ RUN ]

Is this similar to what you have in mind?

@jdebacker
Copy link
Author

Yes - that idea of sending to the switch app would work. Would that be easiest to maintain?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants