Hi all, Thank you for the thoughtful discussion so far — it’s been really helpful to understand the different perspectives. To summarize my understanding so far:
* The misspelling allowPartialPeriodInterestCalcualtion is clearly a typo and appears extensively across the codebase, API surface, documentation, and tests. * Fixing it everywhere would be a non-functional improvement internally, but it does touch the client-facing API, which introduces a real risk of breaking existing integrations. * Some feedback suggests fixing the typo outright and moving forward cleanly. * Other feedback highlights the impact on frontend/client consumers and suggests keeping backward compatibility (for example via aliasing and deprecation). Before I proceed further and invest time in an implementation that might not align with the project’s expectations, I’d really appreciate a clear direction from the maintainers on this point: Should the fix: 1. Correct the typo everywhere without maintaining backward compatibility, or 2. Introduce the corrected field while still supporting the old one for backward compatibility (with deprecation and documentation)? I’m completely happy to follow whichever approach the project prefers — my main goal is to implement this in a way that is correct, acceptable, and useful for the community. Thanks again for the guidance and for taking the time to help clarify this. Best regards, Monica ________________________________ From: Kigred Developer <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2025 10:26 To: Dev <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FINERACT-2206] guidance on proposed backward-compatible fix approach @Victor, Thanks for the work. From the the front end perspective of things, the backward compatibility would be nice to maintain with the deprecation message in the release. Imagine having to redo about 3 frontend or solutions because of a new release. My 2 cents. Wilfred On Mon, 29 Dec 2025, 07:20 VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Could you please share your feedback about the questions I have raised? Your response are very important to understand the impact of the change. Regards Victor El dom, 28 dic 2025 a las 22:17, Fred Amaral (<[email protected]>) escribió: thanks, victor. On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 1:10 AM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: No. I have given my response since the very first email, don’t maintain the typo. And what do you think? Are you using any API of Core banking directly from dev? or are you using a release version ? If so (about using the core banking), which is the effort for making the change on the interface with the fix? Your feedback is appreciated. Regards Victor El dom, 28 dic 2025 a las 22:04, Fred Amaral (<[email protected]>) escribió: should her keep back-comp or not? -- Fred - m: +55 11 984 811 139 On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 at 1:00 AM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Fred, I have given my point of view about not maintaining the typo. She is aware about the points to take care of since the first email. I just add the times/files as statistics. And I think if we focus on fixing it and having talks around the technical debt, we can try to close it as much as possible while being clear about functional and nonfunctional changes. This list is an open and multidirectional communication channel for transparency and also your feedback is valuable in the Fineract JIRA https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-2206 for adding comments. Regards Victor El dom, 28 dic 2025 a las 21:43, Fred Amaral (<[email protected]>) escribió: the issue touches client interface. the misspelling is a typo but if fixed in the 30+ occurrences as mentioned by you, this will likely break the client. whats the take of the group before making monica working on a pr that will be rejected if not properly back-comp created? this is the advise we should be giving her. -- Fred - m: +55 11 984 811 139 On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 at 12:38 AM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Fred, I think this is a typo. Which is a non functional requirement. I have asked her to send the PR for review and explain briefly that it will execute testing, code/doc review and then it will be included in a release (because the PR could be included in one). How can you improve the discussion by giving more feedback? Happy to read you. Regards Victor Romero El dom, 28 dic 2025 a las 21:30, Fred Amaral (<[email protected]>) escribió: unfortunately, this is why a democratic project does not fly. there must be one setting the guardrails. monica is working hard to make things evolve and we basically tell her “do the process and we will figure it out in the end that it breaks clients and reject the PR”. gosh, guys… sometimes i remember the threads i read from linus and i understand why that project works til today. -- Fred - m: +55 11 984 811 139 On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 at 12:12 AM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Yes. 142 times in 35 files. If it passes the testing, the code review and also in the documents the PR will go to the "develop" branch and in the future it could be included in a release. Please share the PR for a technical/doc review. Regards Victor Romero El dom, 28 dic 2025 a las 19:05, Monica (<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>) escribió: Hi Victor Romero, Thanks for taking a look and for the clarification. I understand the point about this being a single typo and will submit the PR shortly. However, while digging deeper, I noticed that this typo (allowPartialPeriodInterestCalcualtion) is currently propagated across multiple layers — domain models, API parameters, constants, SQL aliases, Swagger docs, legacy HTML docs, and even integration/e2e tests. Because of that, it seems to have effectively become part of the public API and persisted contract. My concern is that directly fixing the spelling everywhere might unintentionally break existing clients or integrations that are already using the misspelled field name. From that perspective, I was wondering whether it would be safer to handle this in a backward-compatible way (for example, supporting both the old and corrected parameter names, with deprecation guidance). I wanted to check with you before proceeding further, to make sure the approach aligns with the project’s expectations and avoids any regressions for existing users. Happy to follow whatever direction you feel is best here — just wanted to raise this before making changes. Thanks again for your guidance, Monica ________________________________ From: VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2025 15:51 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [FINERACT-2206] guidance on proposed backward-compatible fix approach Waiting for your PR in order to review it. Thank you in advance for your code contribution. Regards Victor Romero El sáb, 27 dic 2025 a las 23:58, Monica (<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>) escribió: Thank you for your guidance Will keep it in mind. Regards Monica ________________________________ From: VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2025 18:42 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [FINERACT-2206] guidance on proposed backward-compatible fix approach Hello, This is a one character typo. Just fix it and don’t maintain the typo. Regards El El sáb, 27 de dic de 2025 a la(s) 7:30 a.m., Monica <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> escribió: Hello Fineract Maintainers, I hope you’re doing well. I’m planning to work on FINERACT-2206 and wanted to confirm the proposed approach with you before starting implementation, to ensure it aligns with the project’s expectations and best practices. Jira issue link: [FINERACT-2206] Rest API und code contain references to the misspelled "allowPartialPeriodInterestCalcualtion" - ASF Jira<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-2206> Based on my understanding of the issue, the plan would be: 1. Identify all occurrences of the misspelled field allowPartialPeriodInterestCalcualtion across the Java codebase and REST API. 2. Introduce the correctly spelled field allowPartialPeriodInterestCalculation as the primary/internal representation. 3. Maintain backward compatibility for the REST API by supporting both spellings (for example, using Jackson annotations such as @JsonAlias), while favoring the correctly spelled version going forward. 4. Update API documentation / OpenAPI specs to reflect the corrected field name. 5. Add or update tests to ensure both spellings are accepted and existing clients are not broken. 6. Mark the misspelled field as deprecated where appropriate. Before proceeding, I’d really appreciate your confirmation on: * Whether supporting both spellings for backward compatibility is the preferred approach. * Any specific guidelines or constraints you’d like me to follow while implementing this fix. Once confirmed, I’ll go ahead and prepare a PR referencing FINERACT-2206. Thank you for your time and guidance. Best regards, Monica
