Follow-up from "add check for UT rawbank size consistency"
The following discussion from !3063 (merged) should be addressed:
-
@jonrob started a discussion: (+5 comments) Even if this is a correct calculation, could you please e.g. put the logic above into a method with a good name that self-documents what is happening, as otherwise the calculation above means nothing to a not UT expert looking as the code later on, and this sort of long term maintenance is something that should be considered.