'NewbornTransShk: Option if Newborns get transitory shock'

[AMonninger]

Pull request for issue:
Newborns' transitory shocks to income #1125

I added an aditional variable: NewbornTransShk which is by default true. If so, Newborn consumers do NOT get a transitory shock in the first period, only a permanent one.
By setting it 'False' Newborn consumers Do get a transitory shock as well.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #1126 (a612bd4) into master (600372f) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1126   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   73.95%   73.96%           
=======================================
  Files          70       70           
  Lines       10759    10761    +2     
=======================================
+ Hits         7957     7959    +2     
  Misses       2802     2802           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
HARK/ConsumptionSaving/ConsIndShockModel.py	85.86% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 600372f...a612bd4. Read the comment docs.

[Mv77]

This is neat and passes tests.

A minor comment:
If I see an option called NewbornTranShk and set it to true, I'd expect newborns to get shocks. I'd just suggest to make it so that true->shocks and false->no-shocks, making the default false.

[llorracc]

I agree with Mateo - true means they get a shock.

Mateo, could you merge this when Adrian revises?

[Mv77]

I'd be happy to, but I don't have merge permissions.

[AMonninger]

Just pushed the changes.
Is there a way to put it in the documentation as well?

[Mv77]

Yes, you just add one short line to the changelog, a bullet point below "minor changes" saying what you did and linking to the PR.

These changes would be made in a commit to this same pr.

[Mv77]

This now looks good. Thanks a lot @AMonninger .

@llorracc, I do not have the permissions to either approve the remaining tests (workflows?) or merge.

[llorracc]

@AMonninger, for the documentation, you should also add something to the docstring listing the variable as an input and briefly explaining what it does.

Once you have done that and it passes all tests, I will merge.

[AMonninger]

I added it in the 'get_shocks' function as it is the only function affected by the change. Is this what you meant?

[llorracc]

@AMonninger,

Yes, I now see you've added a docstring at the right place. However, see the syntax for optional boolean variables used elsewhere (I think you need it to say something like ": Boolean, Optional" to mark it in the documentation as optional. Also, having done that, please rewrite the description accordingly. (See other examples of optional variables for templates).