Ambika-Sony commented on PR #5744: URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/5744#issuecomment-4208728150
Hi @edk12564 and @adamsaghy, thank you for checking in. I am currently working on the final endpoints, though I'm facing a few minor issues with merge conflicts and checkstyle compliance after the recent rebase onto the 1.15.0 structure. I’m currently resolving these to ensure the build stays 'green' while I add the remaining IDs. I expect to have the updated PR submitted for review shortly. Thanks for your patience!" On Tue, 7 Apr, 2026, 11:06 pm edk12564, ***@***.***> wrote: > *edk12564* left a comment (apache/fineract#5744) > <https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/5744#issuecomment-4201026445> > > Hi Sandro! Thanks for the comment. > > That's a really interesting point. It is true that once these operationIds > are finished being added (remainder to be added by @Ambika-Sony > <https://github.com/Ambika-Sony> and from here #5597 > <https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/5597>), new endpoints in > Fineract could result in deduplication again if named generically. If I am > understanding correctly, your idea is to write a script that reads the > fineract.json, compares it to a predefined spec, and makes edits to the > generated fineract.json with operationIds generated from path + http > method. Is that right? > > Overall I agree some kind of automated check better for future > maintainability purposes. But we have to be careful with implementation. > There might be a few problems: > > - we'd have to update our predefined spec manually when new endpoints > are added, since we cannot use the build to verify against itself > - there are some edge cases where the method name does not properly > convey the functionality. however, changing the method breaks other items > in the codebase (for example, in batch steps which directly call > endpoints). i was using operationId as a way of translating these bad > method names into something usable for tests. for example, in > FinancialActivityAccountsApiResource, we have createGLAccount. however, > this endpoint actually just creates a mapping between a > FinancialActivityAccount and a GLAccount that already exists. there is > another createGLAccount that handles creating GL accounts. > - path + http method might be too verbose. for example, > retrieveTransactionByLoanExternalIdAndTransactionExternalId would become > loansExternalIdLoanExternalIdTransactionsExternalIdExternalTransactionId(). > > I think looking over each endpoint and its functionality might take a long > time, but it's allowing me to properly translate these method names into > usable names for tests. Which I think is still valuable. > > What do you think about this? > > — > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/5744#issuecomment-4201026445>, > or unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BIN7S2GFFOE5RAHPQNIUC634UU4CBAVCNFSM6AAAAACXOZEDH2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHM2DEMBRGAZDMNBUGU> > . > You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: > ***@***.***> > -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
