oleksii-novikov-onix commented on code in PR #6122: URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/6122#discussion_r3593555849
########## fineract-working-capital-loan/src/main/resources/db/changelog/tenant/module/workingcapitalloan/parts/0051_wc_delinquency_range_schedule_base_expected_amount.xml: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> +<!-- + + Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one + or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file + distributed with this work for additional information + regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file + to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the + "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance + with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + + http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + + Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, + software distributed under the License is distributed on an + "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY + KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the + specific language governing permissions and limitations + under the License. + +--> +<databaseChangeLog xmlns="http://www.liquibase.org/xml/ns/dbchangelog"; + xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"; + xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.liquibase.org/xml/ns/dbchangelog http://www.liquibase.org/xml/ns/dbchangelog/dbchangelog-4.3.xsd";> + + <!-- Store the uncapped computed minimum-payment amount alongside the effective (remaining-balance capped) + expected_amount, so reprocessing can restore the base before re-applying the cap. --> + <changeSet author="fineract" id="wcl-0051-1"> Review Comment: It holds the uncapped computed minimum payment, because the remaining balance cap overwrites expected_amount in place, so when reprocessDelinquencySchedule replays after the balance goes back up (like undo of a repayment), there is nothing left to restore the expectation from and the cap would ratchet down permanently. I went with a separate column because it seemed the simpler and more understandable option, the cap is applied in one place and stored, rather than recomputed at every read site. Would you prefer I rework this without the extra column - applying the cap in some way at read time instead? -- 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]
