unfortunately, this is why a democratic project does not fly. there must be one setting the guardrails. monica is working hard to make things evolve and we basically tell her “do the process and we will figure it out in the end that it breaks clients and reject the PR”. gosh, guys…
sometimes i remember the threads i read from linus and i understand why that project works til today. -- Fred - m: +55 11 984 811 139 On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 at 12:12 AM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ < [email protected]> wrote: > Yes. 142 times in 35 files. > > If it passes the testing, the code review and also in the documents the PR > will go to the "develop" branch and in the future it could be included in a > release. > > Please share the PR for a technical/doc review. > > Regards > > Victor Romero > > El dom, 28 dic 2025 a las 19:05, Monica (<[email protected]>) > escribió: > >> 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]>) >> escribió: >> >> Thank you for your guidance >> Will keep it in mind. >> >> Regards >> Monica >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Saturday, December 27, 2025 18:42 >> *To:* [email protected] <[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]> 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 >> >>
