[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-2710?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Adam Saghy reassigned FINERACT-2710:
------------------------------------
Assignee: Farooq Ayoade
> Bulk-import recurring-deposit download template throws HTTP 500
> (NullPointerException) when a recurring-deposit product has a null
> minDepositTermType
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FINERACT-2710
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-2710
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: DataImportTool
> Reporter: Farooq Ayoade
> Assignee: Farooq Ayoade
> Priority: Minor
>
> ---Observed behavior
> GET /v1/recurringdepositaccounts/downloadtemplate returns HTTP 500 on a
> tenant that has at least one recurring-deposit
> product with a null minimum-deposit-term type:
> {noformat}
> java.lang.NullPointerException: Cannot invoke
> "org.apache.fineract.infrastructure.core.data.EnumOptionData.getValue()"
> because the return value of
>
> "org.apache.fineract.portfolio.savings.data.RecurringDepositProductData.getMinDepositTermType()"
> is null
> at
> org.apache.fineract.infrastructure.bulkimport.populator.RecurringDepositProductSheetPopulator.populate(RecurringDepositProductSheetPopulator.java:84)
> at
> org.apache.fineract.infrastructure.bulkimport.populator.recurringdeposit.RecurringDepositWorkbookPopulator.populate(...)
> {noformat}
> Expected behavior
>
> The template downloads successfully (HTTP 200). A recurring-deposit product
> with no minimum-deposit-term type simply
> leaves that lookup cell blank — exactly as the populator already does for
> the other optional product fields.
> Steps to reproduce
>
> 1. Create a recurring-deposit product without a minimum-deposit-term /
> term-type.
> 2. GET
> /fineract-provider/api/v1/recurringdepositaccounts/downloadtemplate?dateFormat=dd%20MMMM%20yyyy.
> 3. Observe HTTP 500 with the NPE above.
> Root cause
>
> RecurringDepositProductSheetPopulator.populate() writes the
> min-deposit-term-type cell without a null guard, while
> every sibling optional field around it is guarded:
> {code:java}
> writeBoolean(PRECLOSURE_PENAL_APPLICABLE_COL, row,
> product.isPreClosurePenalApplicable());
> writeString(MIN_DEPOSIT_TERM_TYPE_COL, row,
> product.getMinDepositTermType().getValue()); // <-- no null check
> if (product.getMinDepositAmount() != null) { ... } // siblings ARE guarded
> if (product.getMaxDepositAmount() != null) { ... }
> if (product.getMinDepositTerm() != null) { ... }
> {code}
>
> getMinDepositTermType() can be null for a product that never set one, so
> .getValue() NPEs and 500s the whole template.
> Note that the fixed-deposit product sheet populator already guards the
> equivalent field, so this is an inconsistency between two sibling populators
> rather than a design decision.
> Proposed fix
> Guard the write like its siblings:
> {code:java}
> if (product.getMinDepositTermType() != null) {
> writeString(MIN_DEPOSIT_TERM_TYPE_COL, row,
> product.getMinDepositTermType().getValue());
> }
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
