review computation of cached values

[chadwhitacre]

From @book at #3666 (comment):

[T]he "Takes" total is different from what I actually receive each week.

[chadwhitacre]

+1 @anselmh on #3756.

[chadwhitacre]

Looking at this w/ @kaguillera ...

[chadwhitacre]

Picking up from #3721 (comment), here are the cached values we want to review:

       sum           count             sharing bit
       ------------------------------------------------
~user  giving        ngiving_to        anonymous_giving
       taking        ntaking_from      —

Team   receiving     nreceiving_from   —
       distributing  ndistributing_to  —

[chadwhitacre]

#3756 and #3793 are subtickets of this one.

[chadwhitacre]

Alright, so while it wouldn't be bad to review the computation of cached values, it seems that that's not the main problem. Let's assume we are computing cached values properly: the problem still remains that ~user expectations differ from what we're showing right now.

[chadwhitacre]

So what's the expectation and what are we showing instead?

[chadwhitacre]

#3756 and #3793 are subtickets of this one.

Not subtickets, unless our review of computation reveals actual computation bugs. See gratipay/inside.gratipay.com#383 (comment).

[chadwhitacre]

Let's assume we are computing cached values properly

Now let's test that assumption. :-)

[chadwhitacre]

Okay, #3793 is not due to bad math. It's a presentation bug.

[chadwhitacre]

Neither is #3756. Closing.

[chadwhitacre]

(And #3666 (comment), which lay behind this ticket, was folded into #3756.)