Hi Victor Romero, Thanks for taking a look and for the clarification. I understand the point about this being a single typo and will submit the PR shortly. However, while digging deeper, I noticed that this typo (allowPartialPeriodInterestCalcualtion) is currently propagated across multiple layers — domain models, API parameters, constants, SQL aliases, Swagger docs, legacy HTML docs, and even integration/e2e tests. Because of that, it seems to have effectively become part of the public API and persisted contract. My concern is that directly fixing the spelling everywhere might unintentionally break existing clients or integrations that are already using the misspelled field name. From that perspective, I was wondering whether it would be safer to handle this in a backward-compatible way (for example, supporting both the old and corrected parameter names, with deprecation guidance). I wanted to check with you before proceeding further, to make sure the approach aligns with the project’s expectations and avoids any regressions for existing users. Happy to follow whatever direction you feel is best here — just wanted to raise this before making changes. Thanks again for your guidance, Monica
________________________________ From: VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2025 15:51 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FINERACT-2206] guidance on proposed backward-compatible fix approach Waiting for your PR in order to review it. Thank you in advance for your code contribution. Regards Victor Romero El sáb, 27 dic 2025 a las 23:58, Monica (<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>) escribió: Thank you for your guidance Will keep it in mind. Regards Monica ________________________________ From: VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2025 18:42 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [FINERACT-2206] guidance on proposed backward-compatible fix approach Hello, This is a one character typo. Just fix it and don’t maintain the typo. Regards El El sáb, 27 de dic de 2025 a la(s) 7:30 a.m., Monica <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> escribió: Hello Fineract Maintainers, I hope you’re doing well. I’m planning to work on FINERACT-2206 and wanted to confirm the proposed approach with you before starting implementation, to ensure it aligns with the project’s expectations and best practices. Jira issue link: [FINERACT-2206] Rest API und code contain references to the misspelled "allowPartialPeriodInterestCalcualtion" - ASF Jira<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-2206> Based on my understanding of the issue, the plan would be: 1. Identify all occurrences of the misspelled field allowPartialPeriodInterestCalcualtion across the Java codebase and REST API. 2. Introduce the correctly spelled field allowPartialPeriodInterestCalculation as the primary/internal representation. 3. Maintain backward compatibility for the REST API by supporting both spellings (for example, using Jackson annotations such as @JsonAlias), while favoring the correctly spelled version going forward. 4. Update API documentation / OpenAPI specs to reflect the corrected field name. 5. Add or update tests to ensure both spellings are accepted and existing clients are not broken. 6. Mark the misspelled field as deprecated where appropriate. Before proceeding, I’d really appreciate your confirmation on: * Whether supporting both spellings for backward compatibility is the preferred approach. * Any specific guidelines or constraints you’d like me to follow while implementing this fix. Once confirmed, I’ll go ahead and prepare a PR referencing FINERACT-2206. Thank you for your time and guidance. Best regards, Monica
