Skip to content

FINERACT-2455: Add WC near-breach evaluation business step#5849

Open
oleksii-novikov-onix wants to merge 2 commits into
apache:developfrom
openMF:FINERACT-2455/wc-near-breach-evaluation-business-step
Open

FINERACT-2455: Add WC near-breach evaluation business step#5849
oleksii-novikov-onix wants to merge 2 commits into
apache:developfrom
openMF:FINERACT-2455/wc-near-breach-evaluation-business-step

Conversation

@oleksii-novikov-onix
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description

Describe the changes made and why they were made. (Ignore if these details are present on the associated Apache Fineract JIRA ticket.)

Checklist

Please make sure these boxes are checked before submitting your pull request - thanks!

  • Write the commit message as per our guidelines
  • Acknowledge that we will not review PRs that are not passing the build ("green") - it is your responsibility to get a proposed PR to pass the build, not primarily the project's maintainers.
  • Create/update unit or integration tests for verifying the changes made.
  • Follow our coding conventions.
  • Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation at fineract-provider/src/main/resources/static/legacy-docs/apiLive.htm with details of any API changes
  • This PR must not be a "code dump". Large changes can be made in a branch, with assistance. Ask for help on the developer mailing list.

Your assigned reviewer(s) will follow our guidelines for code reviews.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@galovics galovics left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not convinced CREDIT_BALANCE_REFUND should be in REDUCING_TRANSACTION_TYPES here.

A CREDIT_BALANCE_REFUND is the bank returning an overpayment to the borrower - money leaving the loan, not an inbound payment. Summing it in paidInWindow would make the borrower appear to have paid more than they actually did, and could suppress a near-breach trigger that should have fired. None of the e2e scenarios exercise this path, so a bug here would go undetected.

Wouldn't it make more sense to only count REPAYMENT and GOODWILL_CREDIT? (And worth a double-check on GOODWILL_CREDIT too - that's a bank-side write-off, not a borrower payment, though at least it goes the right direction.)

https://github.com/apache/fineract/blob/FINERACT-2455/wc-near-breach-evaluation-business-step/fineract-working-capital-loan/src/main/java/org/apache/fineract/portfolio/workingcapitalloan/service/WorkingCapitalLoanNearBreachEvaluationServiceImpl.java#L782-L783

@oleksii-novikov-onix oleksii-novikov-onix force-pushed the FINERACT-2455/wc-near-breach-evaluation-business-step branch from a743639 to 9ca4f57 Compare May 18, 2026 06:07
@oleksii-novikov-onix
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@galovics Thanks, I removed CREDIT_BALANCE_REFUND

@oleksii-novikov-onix oleksii-novikov-onix force-pushed the FINERACT-2455/wc-near-breach-evaluation-business-step branch from 9ca4f57 to 55cc88c Compare May 18, 2026 12:13
@ruzeynalov ruzeynalov force-pushed the FINERACT-2455/wc-near-breach-evaluation-business-step branch from 55cc88c to ff9bfb2 Compare May 18, 2026 12:23
@oleksii-novikov-onix oleksii-novikov-onix marked this pull request as ready for review May 18, 2026 14:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants