Hi all, I’ve been looking into the recent changes around loan rescheduling and wanted to get more clarity on the intended use case, particularly in relation to introducing the waiveOverdueCharges flag.
>From what I understand, this allows overdue penalty charges to be waived as part of the rescheduling process. I’m trying to better understand the business scenario this is meant to support: - Is the expectation that waiving overdue charges should happen implicitly during rescheduling? - Or should waivers remain an explicit, separately controlled action? Using a flag for this behavior raises some questions from a business and process standpoint, especially since it may not clearly capture the reasoning behind why a waiver is applied. I’d also like to understand current practices a bit better: - How are overdue charges typically waived today in the system? - Are there existing workflows around approvals, justification, or reason codes? In many lending environments, waiving charges is treated as a controlled exception process rather than something bundled into another operation. It would be helpful to understand how this aligns with expected real-world usage. Additionally, in cases where a loan is rescheduled with existing penalties: - Should those penalties be waived? - Or is there a use case where they should continue to exist and be tracked separately after rescheduling? Sharing the relevant references here for context: - Ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/FINERACT/issues/FINERACT-2592?filter=allopenissues - PR: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/5791 It would be great to get input on the intended business flow so the implementation aligns well with practical and regulatory expectations. I'm opening this discussion in this devlist for more input. Thanks and Regards, Aman Mittal
