Updated pet-deposit.json

[tekarrawilkinson]

Adding pet-deposit.json.

Review: https://brms-simulator.apps.silver.devops.gov.bc.ca/rule/66f3363dfbe0ac3c4f92fb02?version=inReview

[tekarrawilkinson]

@prchristenson @sbuhovac @Iliana777 @cevenden this rule is ready for validation testing

[sbuhovac]

Cris (@cevenden) and I reviewed the pet deposit rule as part of Validation Testing and here's our feedback.

• Input description "Has repayment agreement or promise to pay" sounds like the client already signed a repayment form but that's not the case at the initial eligibility stage. It might be more accurate to say "Agrees in writing to repay" instead.

• Input 'requestedAmount" is described as "Requested amount of supplement by client if less than full eligible amount of supplement". This description makes it sound like this is not a required field if not less than half rent but it is a required field. To make it simpler, we could rename it to "Requested amount of supplement by client".

• Input "Tenancy is a valid tenancy under the Residential Tenancy Act" could be modified to say "Tenancy is a valid tenancy under the Residential Tenancy Act or for a housing unit owned by a co-op" to match policy.

• When we select "No" to inpit 'hasRepaymentAgreement' there is no output 'isEligible' showing up. It should show up with FALSE result. This issue also shows up with some other combinations so we suggest to review the Table.

• There is no output "Reason" when 'isEligble' results in FALSE. The most recent rules had "Reason" output so we need to be consistent across all rules.

@tekarrawilkinson @prchristenson @Iliana777