@Victor, Thanks for the work. >From the the front end perspective of things, the backward compatibility would be nice to maintain with the deprecation message in the release. Imagine having to redo about 3 frontend or solutions because of a new release.
My 2 cents. Wilfred On Mon, 29 Dec 2025, 07:20 VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ, < [email protected]> wrote: > Could you please share your feedback about the questions I have raised? > Your response are very important to understand the impact of the change. > > Regards > > Victor > > El dom, 28 dic 2025 a las 22:17, Fred Amaral (<[email protected]>) > escribió: > >> thanks, victor. >> >> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 1:10 AM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> No. >>> >>> I have given my response since the very first email, don’t maintain the >>> typo. >>> >>> And what do you think? Are you using any API of Core banking directly >>> from dev? or are you using a release version ? If so (about using the core >>> banking), which is the effort for making the change on the interface with >>> the fix? >>> >>> Your feedback is appreciated. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Victor >>> >>> El dom, 28 dic 2025 a las 22:04, Fred Amaral (<[email protected]>) >>> escribió: >>> >>>> should her keep back-comp or not? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Fred >>>> - m: +55 11 984 811 139 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 at 1:00 AM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Fred, >>>>> >>>>> I have given my point of view about not maintaining the typo. She is >>>>> aware about the points to take care of since the first email. I just add >>>>> the times/files as statistics. >>>>> >>>>> And I think if we focus on fixing it and having talks around the >>>>> technical debt, we can try to close it as much as possible while being >>>>> clear about functional and nonfunctional changes. >>>>> >>>>> This list is an open and multidirectional communication channel for >>>>> transparency and also your feedback is valuable in the Fineract JIRA >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-2206 for adding >>>>> comments. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Victor >>>>> >>>>> El dom, 28 dic 2025 a las 21:43, Fred Amaral (<[email protected]>) >>>>> escribió: >>>>> >>>>>> the issue touches client interface. the misspelling is a typo but if >>>>>> fixed in the 30+ occurrences as mentioned by you, this will likely break >>>>>> the client. whats the take of the group before making monica working on a >>>>>> pr that will be rejected if not properly back-comp created? this is the >>>>>> advise we should be giving her. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Fred >>>>>> - m: +55 11 984 811 139 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 at 12:38 AM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Fred, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think this is a typo. Which is a non functional requirement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have asked her to send the PR for review and explain briefly that >>>>>>> it will execute testing, code/doc review and then it will be included >>>>>>> in a >>>>>>> release (because the PR could be included in one). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How can you improve the discussion by giving more feedback? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Happy to read you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Victor Romero >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> El dom, 28 dic 2025 a las 21:30, Fred Amaral (<[email protected]>) >>>>>>> escribió: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
