Related question . . . there is a COA in the MIFOS Admin UI that appears to "save accounts to build out the COA" (Chart of Accounts) line by line (primitive, but functional?). . . Is the COA and basic operational accounting and accounting rules that appear in the UI actually supported in Fineract ? Is it to be supported going forward?
On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 8:19 PM James Dailey <jamespdai...@gmail.com> wrote: > Paul - I agree w your assessment but some comments inline. > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 2:12 PM Paul <pchristi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hey James, Ed, Felis Et Al >> >> MIX seems to have gone be the wayside? BUT . . . XBRL has evolved into >> a mature, regulation-driven standard, now mandated across multiple US and >> European agencies for financial reporting. Global adoption is accelerating >> to indicate a long future. >> > > Completely agree. Larger story - also relates to MCP server and BIAN > specification. > > >> If a *skilled* developer wants to build this out as a robust and >> documented API extension for Fineract >> AND >> the community agrees to add it as a "Certified Fineract Extension" in or >> outside Fineract or some such >> > > No such thing OUTSIDE. Vendors outside of the project, and we have to > include Mifos as a prime example, do not get special “certification” from > the Apache project. > > If agreed to be IN the project, we can take a discussion and then vote for > it, or just go build it and contribute it as it develops. That’s the way. > > AND >> we (developer and I) agree on a near term timeline (weeks not months****) >> to build an MVP leveraging / building on the existing MIFOS UI, >> > > Mifos UI is not here > Fineract may need its own front end or demo set up for this; > > And, if this involves some backend Fineract logic for generating the > proper Query then that’s the key ticket at Fineract. > > I tend to think we should include the query concept and allow outside > efforts to leverage that. > > THEN >> I should be should be able to assist with business insight needed to make >> this a highly valuable starting point for regulatory and standardized >> reporting. >> This could include providing standardized COA template mapped to XBRL >> template saving hundreds of hours of platform setup and configuration prep >> time . . . >> Community can say "Yes, I like it for a vote." "No for a don't like >> vote". Leadership can point to inside project or a project extension . . . >> > > That’s a nice offer ; much needed. > > By describing it here first before building it, you’re doing the necessary > thing. > > >> >> I'm sure this is probably NOT how this community or most others work, but >> **There is Now. There is Later. There is Never . . . . >> >> At my age, buying green bananas begins to look like more like "Never" >> than "Later", so if the community wants it, let's get rolling . . . if >> NOT, kill it and move to the next BIG thing. :) >> > > Understood. We should discuss . > > >> Regards, >> Paul >> >> On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 12:52 PM James Dailey <jdai...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Felix >>> >>> Thanks for noticing that functionality. Can you tell me why you need >>> it? >>> >>> The XBRL report feature dates back to my efforts in 2004-2005 to link >>> the Mifos project to the reporting infrastructure for "Rating MFIs" that >>> the Mix Market at CGAP (World Bank) had established. The intention was to >>> create a kind of market pull - if an MFI (Microfinance Institution) could >>> have a XBRL format go directly to MIX data-system then they could be rated >>> quickly and highly, leading to better transparency and potentially more >>> on-lending funds. Today the Mix market is gone, or evolved into Findex >>> datasets, with less focus on this sort of thing. >>> >>> I wrote some early documentation and attended a couple of XBRL >>> conferences, where I learned that this standard was still pretty much in >>> its infancy. Since then the SEC has adopted it for reporting. 2024 ==> >>> https://www.sec.gov/files/edgar/xbrl-guide.pdf. >>> >>> So, here at Fineract, I believe that the relevant thing is to deprecate >>> this feature (which is actually at Mifos Reports, not here) AND to >>> recognize that from a reporting perspective, having a feature that can auto >>> generate regulatory reporting is an important item. >>> >>> The first step would be to see what XBRL formats are needed for Bank and >>> NBFI (Non Banking Financial Institution) Reporting. This may start with >>> SARS. (system activity reports) and similar. It may be that the >>> requirement here is to have a "read only" API for reporting for regulatory >>> purposes. There's a lot of design that needs to happen for that. >>> >>> I have a longer post I'm working on - so... please do let me know how >>> this relates to your specific needs? Market requirement? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> James >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 10:18 AM Ed Cable <edca...@mifos.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Good question Felix. Mifos, prior to transition to Apache Fineract, had >>>> been supporting the XBRL format as it had been identified and chosen by MIX >>>> market as a standardized reporting format for the microfinance industry. So >>>> that is why we had an intern work on an integration and support of that >>>> format. I believe XBRL was a bit overkill for what MIX was aiming for the >>>> industry overall and those standardization efforts died out. >>>> >>>> That being said, it would probably be good to deprecate this >>>> functionality and not expose current users to it via the UI. However if >>>> there are others who are needing report in the XBRL format and are actively >>>> using I will let them voice their opinion as Bharath has raised. >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 7:12 AM Felix van Hove <fvanh...@gmx.de.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> Does Fineract support XBRL resp. MIX ? The UI has respective forms, but >>>>> all requests fail and I can't find a ticket regarding this in >>>>> Fineract's >>>>> Jira. >>>>> >>>>> The only documentation I found is this: >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.mifos.org/mifosx/user-manual/for-all-users/reports/xbrl-reporting >>>>> . I'm therefore not even sure the parameters used by the UI currently >>>>> for the PUT /v1/mixmapping are correct. Can you point me to any >>>>> documentation? >>>>> >>>>> Calling /v1/mixmapping I get a 400 or 500, e.g. >>>>> >>>>> --- snip --- >>>>> 2025-03-28 14:21:49.975 - WARN 7056 --- [nio-8443-exec-3] >>>>> o.m.jdbc.message.server.ErrorPacket : Error: 1406-22001: Data too >>>>> long for column 'config' at row 1 >>>>> [EL Warning]: 2025-03-28 14:21:49.976--UnitOfWork(809753073)--Exception >>>>> [EclipseLink-4002] (Eclipse Persistence Services - >>>>> 4.0.2.v202306161219): >>>>> org.eclipse.persistence.exceptions.DatabaseException >>>>> Internal Exception: java.sql.SQLSyntaxErrorException: (conn=13) Data >>>>> too >>>>> long for column 'config' at row 1 >>>>> Error Code: 1406 >>>>> Call: UPDATE `mix_taxonomy_mapping` SET `identifier` = ?, `config` = ? >>>>> WHERE (`id` = ?) >>>>> bind => [3 parameters bound] >>>>> Query: >>>>> >>>>> UpdateObjectQuery(org.apache.fineract.mix.domain.MixTaxonomyMapping@685f8ad5 >>>>> ) >>>>> 2025-03-28 14:21:50.013 - WARN 7056 --- [nio-8443-exec-3] >>>>> o.a.f.i.c.e.DefaultExceptionMapper : Exception occurred >>>>> >>>>> jakarta.persistence.RollbackException: Transaction "rolled back" >>>>> because >>>>> transaction was set to RollbackOnly. >>>>> at >>>>> >>>>> org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.transaction.EntityTransactionImpl.commit(EntityTransactionImpl.java:146) >>>>> at >>>>> >>>>> org.springframework.orm.jpa.JpaTransactionManager.doCommit(JpaTransactionManager.java:562) >>>>> at >>>>> >>>>> org.apache.fineract.infrastructure.core.persistence.ExtendedJpaTransactionManager.doCommit(ExtendedJpaTransactionManager.java:64) >>>>> at >>>>> >>>>> org.springframework.transaction.support.AbstractPlatformTransactionManager.processCommit(AbstractPlatformTransactionManager.java:795) >>>>> --- snip --- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Calling GET >>>>> >>>>> /fineract-provider/api/v1/mixreport?startDate=2025-01-01&endDate=2025-01-05 >>>>> I get a 403, response body: >>>>> >>>>> --- snip --- >>>>> { >>>>> "developerMessage": "Request was understood but caused a domain rule >>>>> violation.", >>>>> "httpStatusCode": "403", >>>>> "defaultUserMessage": "Errors contain reason for domain rule >>>>> violation.", >>>>> "userMessageGlobalisationCode": >>>>> "validation.msg.domain.rule.violation", >>>>> "errors": [ >>>>> { >>>>> "developerMessage": "Mapping does not exist", >>>>> "defaultUserMessage": "Mapping does not exist", >>>>> "userMessageGlobalisationCode": >>>>> "error.msg.xbrl.report.mapping.invalid.id", >>>>> "parameterName": "id", >>>>> "args": [ >>>>> { >>>>> "value": "Mapping is empty" >>>>> } >>>>> ] >>>>> } >>>>> ] >>>>> } >>>>> --- snip --- >>>>> >>>>> I don't see an "id" parameter in the swagger. >>>>> >>>>> Felix >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Ed Cable* >>>> President/CEO, Mifos Initiative >>>> edca...@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649 >>>> >>>> *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org >>>> <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos> >>>> >>>> >> >> -- >> -- >> Paul >> > -- -- Paul
