Hi Bharath, Thank you for the follow-up!. Unfortunately, I have tried the link on multiple browsers and devices, but the page still fails to load for me (likely a regional ISP issue).
Since I see others are successfully creating accounts, would it be possible for an admin to manually initiate the account creation for me? My preferred username is ayushsingh and my email is [email protected] . Thank you for your patience as I get through these technical hurdles! On Mon, Feb 9, 2026, 11:43 AM Bharath Gowda <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ayush, > > I could see other contributors creating a JIRA request. Could you please > try creating the account now? > > https://selfserve.apache.org/jira-account.html > > Regards, > Bharath > Lead Implementation Analyst | Mifos Initiative > PMC Member | Apache Fineract > Mobile: +91.7019635592 > http://mifos.org <http://facebook.com/mifos> > <http://www.twitter.com/mifos> > > > On Sun, Feb 8, 2026 at 9:17 PM Mohammed Saifulhuq < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Ayush, >> >> Thanks. Yes, reviewing the Permission mapping and Global Limits in PR >> #5465 is the correct first step. >> >> The integration tests in `SavingsAccountForceWithdrawalTest.java` >> document exactly how the backend handles the limits and permissions. Please >> use that as the reference contract for your UI/Notification logic. >> >> Once the maintainers merge this PR, the foundation will be stable for you >> to open the Phase 2 PR. >> >> Best, >> Mohammed >> >> On Sun, Feb 8, 2026 at 1:27 PM AYUSH SINGH <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Mohammed, >>> >>> Great work on completing Phase 1! It’s exciting to see the Core Engine >>> PR live. >>> >>> I will start by reviewing your PR (#5465) to understand how you’ve >>> implemented the FORCE_WITHDRAWAL_SAVINGSACCOUNT permission and the global >>> limits. This will help me ensure that my work on Phase 2 (Standing >>> Instructions, Transfers, and Validation Logic) is perfectly aligned with >>> your core logic. >>> >>> @Bharath: Once you have a moment to assist with the JIRA account, I'll >>> be ready to document the Phase 2 requirements there. >>> >>> Best, >>> Ayush Singh >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2026, 12:43 PM Mohammed Saifulhuq < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> I am happy to report that the implementation for Phase 1 (Core Engine) >>>> is complete and the PR is ready for review. >>>> >>>> Per our discussion (Ádám, Bharath, Campbell), I have adhered to the >>>> strict architectural requirements: >>>> >>>> 1. **API Design:** Used the specific command `force-withdrawal` to >>>> align with the Transaction Enum, keeping the backend clean while supporting >>>> the "Force Debit" functional requirement. >>>> >>>> 2. **Safety:** Implemented Global Configurations for limits to prevent >>>> unlimited overdrafts. >>>> >>>> 3. **Security:** Added a distinct Granular Permission >>>> (`FORCE_WITHDRAWAL_SAVINGSACCOUNT`) so this capability can be audited >>>> separately from standard withdrawals. >>>> >>>> The PR includes comprehensive Integration Tests that cover the "Happy >>>> Path" (successful force withdrawal) and the "Limit Path" (blocking >>>> withdrawals exceeding the overdraft limit). >>>> >>>> **PR Link:** https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/5465 >>>> **Build Status:** Passing (MariaDB, PostgreSQL, MySQL) >>>> >>>> @Ayush — The core logic is now stable. Once this is merged, the >>>> foundation is ready for you to begin Phase 2 (Reason Codes & >>>> Notifications). >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Mohammed Saifulhuq >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 9:37 PM Mohammed Saifulhuq < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Campbell, >>>>> >>>>> That is a very keen distinction. You are absolutely >>>>> right—functionally, this is a generic 'Debit' (often back-office driven) >>>>> rather than a customer-initiated 'Withdrawal'. >>>>> >>>>> However, to keep the technical implementation clean, we decided to >>>>> stick with force-withdrawal for the API Command to align with >>>>> Fineract's existing transactionType enum (WITHDRAWAL). Introducing a >>>>> new DEBIT transaction type at the platform level would require >>>>> massive refactoring of reports and accounting mapping. >>>>> >>>>> That said, for the Permission Name and UI Label, we can certainly use >>>>> the term 'Force Debit' to be semantically accurate for the users. >>>>> >>>>> Best, Mohammed >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 8:39 PM Campbell Burgess < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Anu... if I may suggest "Debit Savings Account Force Debit, Debit >>>>>> Savings Account Force Debit Checker" or something like that. >>>>>> >>>>>> ...to split hairs, a "Withdrawal" by the customer is really the >>>>>> functional trigger to a debit. >>>>>> >>>>>> In this situation, the functional trigger is often not a customer >>>>>> initiated "Withdrawal". >>>>>> >>>>>> It could be... but many times is not. It could be a fee, a penalty, >>>>>> an online transaction of some sort. >>>>>> >>>>>> Withdrawal is obviously fine as a descriptor, but "Debit" will be >>>>>> more precise. >>>>>> On 2/6/2026 5:32 AM, Anu Omotayo via dev wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Mohammed, you can go ahead please. >>>>>> >>>>>> In terms of naming convention, I think we should use "force debit" >>>>>> because its a banking terminology: >>>>>> >>>>>> API: withdrawal-force-debit >>>>>> >>>>>> Permissions: WITHDRAW SAVINGSACCOUNT FORCE DEBIT, WITHDRAW >>>>>> SAVINGSACCOUNT FORCE DEBIT CHECKER >>>>>> >>>>>> System configuration: allow-force-debit-on-savings-account, >>>>>> force-debit-on-savings-account-limit >>>>>> OR allow-negative-balance-on-savings-account, >>>>>> negative-balance-on-savings-account-limit >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Anu Omotayo >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, February 6, 2026 at 05:39:58 AM GMT+1, Mohammed Saifulhuq >>>>>> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Ayush, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for sharing that real-world scenario. That is exactly the >>>>>> 'silent failure' risk we want to avoid. >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems we are converging on the 'Negative Balance with Limits' >>>>>> approach as the most robust solution because: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. >>>>>> >>>>>> Accounting: It respects GAAP/IFRS liability recognition >>>>>> immediately (General Ledger accuracy). >>>>>> 2. >>>>>> >>>>>> Transparency: As you noted, it prevents the 'missing money' >>>>>> confusion for the end-user. >>>>>> 3. >>>>>> >>>>>> Safety: The proposed min-overdraft-limit configuration prevents >>>>>> the infinite debt risk I mentioned earlier. >>>>>> >>>>>> @Anu / @Paul — seeing as we have consensus on both the technical and >>>>>> functional sides, are you happy for me to proceed with drafting the >>>>>> implementation plan for the Negative Balance with Configurable Limits >>>>>> model? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, Mohammed Saifulhuq >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 10:07 PM AYUSH SINGH <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> The discussion regarding "user confusion" vs. "accounting accuracy" >>>>>> is very relevant. I recently saw a real-world case where a user didn't >>>>>> maintain a minimum balance, resulting in a -₹3,000 state due to bank >>>>>> charges. >>>>>> When they eventually deposited funds, the money was "auto-deducted" >>>>>> to cover the debt. Because the system didn't make the negative balance >>>>>> transparent, the user was left confused, thinking their deposit had >>>>>> simply >>>>>> disappeared until they contacted the bank. >>>>>> >>>>>> This supports Mohammad's point about the importance of General Ledger >>>>>> accuracy and transparency. If we use a "shadow" or "pending" balance as >>>>>> Alberto suggested, we might actually increase user support tickets >>>>>> because >>>>>> the debt isn't visible to the customer until their new deposit vanishes. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suggest we prioritize a model that reflects the true liability on >>>>>> the user's dashboard to avoid this "missing money" experience. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Ayush Singh >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2026, 9:37 PM Mohammed Saifulhuq < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Alberto, >>>>>> That is an interesting approach, but I see a few architectural risks >>>>>> with a 'Pending Transaction' model versus a true 'Negative Balance' model >>>>>> for this specific use case: >>>>>> Regulatory Reality: When a 'Force Post' occurs (e.g., a tax levy or >>>>>> regulatory fee), the liability is often immediate. The customer is in >>>>>> debt >>>>>> to the bank at that exact second. Keeping the balance at 0 and hiding the >>>>>> debt in a 'pending' state might misrepresent the actual General Ledger >>>>>> (GL) >>>>>> position of the bank. >>>>>> Interest Calculation: If the account is effectively overdrawn, the >>>>>> bank usually needs to accrue interest on that debt immediately. >>>>>> Fineract's >>>>>> existing interest engine handles negative balances (overdrafts) >>>>>> naturally. >>>>>> If we use a 'pending' queue, we would need to rebuild the interest >>>>>> calculation logic to look at the 'shadow' balance, which adds significant >>>>>> complexity. >>>>>> Complexity on Deposit: Your approach requires a new event listener on >>>>>> every deposit to 'sweep' the pending queue. This introduces concurrency >>>>>> challenges. >>>>>> I believe the 'Negative Balance with Limits' approach stays closer to >>>>>> standard GAAP/IFRS accounting principles where a liability is recognized >>>>>> immediately on the ledger. >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Mohammed Saifulhuq >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 5 Feb, 2026, 9:27 pm Jose Alberto Hernandez, < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello! >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to propose a more robust method: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Keep the Savings Account as is, don't update the allowed overdraft >>>>>> or something else, >>>>>> 2. Generate a new transaction type that will be applied once the >>>>>> account has some balance, this can be added to the Savings Account with a >>>>>> new command >>>>>> 3. Include a new Balance amount, similar as we have now, totalBalance >>>>>> amount and available amount, to include those transactions, this new >>>>>> balance usually will be negative when the Savings Account has these >>>>>> transactions to be applied >>>>>> >>>>>> The idea of this new transaction type is to record the different >>>>>> pending stuff to be applied the next time the account has some deposit >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and regards >>>>>> Alberto >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 8:09 PM Mohammed Saifulhuq < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Anu and Campbell, >>>>>> This is a critical feature for regulatory compliance, especially for >>>>>> institutions handling automated service charges or tax deductions where >>>>>> rejecting the debit is not a legal option. >>>>>> I agree with Anu's architectural approach, particularly separating >>>>>> this into a distinct API command (withdrawal-force-post). Mixing this >>>>>> logic >>>>>> into the standard withdrawal flow could create dangerous loopholes where >>>>>> overdrafts happen accidentally. >>>>>> One additional consideration: >>>>>> If we enable allow-negative-balance, we should also consider if this >>>>>> requires a 'Limit' configuration (e.g., 'Max Overdraft Amount'). Allowing >>>>>> infinite negative balance might pose a risk if a force-post API is abused >>>>>> or looped. >>>>>> I am happy to pick up the implementation of the Global Configuration >>>>>> and the Permission structure if we have consensus on the design. >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Mohammed Saifulhuq >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 5 Feb, 2026, 6:08 am Anu Omotayo via dev, < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> I had a similar discussion with my colleague on savings account with >>>>>> negative balance about two weeks ago. The ask was to debit customer >>>>>> savings >>>>>> accounts for regulatory reasons even if the account balance is 0. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, I had a negative balance in my account with a commercial bank >>>>>> days ago due to a bank charge that I wasn't expecting. >>>>>> >>>>>> Below is a suggestion on how I think this feature can be implemented >>>>>> in fineract. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. An "allow-negative-balance-on-savings-account" can be added to the >>>>>> global configuration to enable/disable this feature. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. It should be implemented as a separate API due to its sensitive >>>>>> nature e.g (e.g ~ >>>>>> /fineract-provider/api/v1/savingsaccounts/14/transactions?command=withdrawal-force-post). >>>>>> The "allow-negative-balance-on-savings-account" setting should be >>>>>> checked before the transaction is posted. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. New permissions such as WITHDRAW SAVINGSACCOUNT FORCE DEBIT, >>>>>> WITHDRAW SAVINGSACCOUNT FORCE DEBIT CHECKER should be created and used >>>>>> for >>>>>> the new API. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Anu Omotayo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, January 11, 2026 at 01:12:07 AM GMT+1, Campbell Burgess < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Paul.... Very well laid out. Thank you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bottom line... negative consumer deposit (savings accounts in >>>>>> Fineract) routinely go negative, with and without, formal arrangements >>>>>> and >>>>>> with (but also without) account holder opt-in. >>>>>> >>>>>> If what I am now guessing is correct, that Fineract does not readily >>>>>> support a force-post, what is the best path forward. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, we are happy to do all the lifting and contribute the work >>>>>> product to the community, of course, expecting independent review and >>>>>> oversight. >>>>>> >>>>>> Campbell >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/10/2026 10:37 AM, Paul wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Regulation E (Electronic Fund Transfers): For one-time debit card and >>>>>> ATM transactions, banks cannot charge an overdraft fee unless the >>>>>> consumer >>>>>> has explicitly opted in. However, even without an opt-in, a bank is >>>>>> legally >>>>>> permitted to pay the transaction (creating a negative balance) as long as >>>>>> it does not charge a fee. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Herring BANCORP ® >>>>>> >>>>>> C. Campbell Burgess >>>>>> President/CEO >>>>>> Office: (806) 373-3921 | Direct: (806) 242-3704 >>>>>> >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Herring Bancorp >>>>>> 2201 Civic Circle, Suite 1000 >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/2201+Civic+Circle,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A++++++++++++Amarillo,+TX+79109?entry=gmail&source=g> >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/2201+Civic+Circle,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Amarillo,+TX+79109?entry=gmail&source=g> >>>>>> Amarillo, TX 79109 >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/2201+Civic+Circle,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A++++++++++++Amarillo,+TX+79109?entry=gmail&source=g> >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/2201+Civic+Circle,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Amarillo,+TX+79109?entry=gmail&source=g> >>>>>> www.herringbank.com >>>>>> >>>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail is intended only for the use of the >>>>>> individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information >>>>>> that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under >>>>>> applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail message is not the intended >>>>>> recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of the >>>>>> message >>>>>> to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any >>>>>> dissemination, >>>>>> distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have >>>>>> received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone >>>>>> at >>>>>> (303) 565-7001 and also indicate the sender's name. Thank you. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Herring BANCORP ® >>>>>> >>>>>> C. Campbell Burgess >>>>>> President/CEO >>>>>> Office: (806) 373-3921 | Direct: (806) 242-3704 >>>>>> >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Herring Bancorp >>>>>> 2201 Civic Circle, Suite 1000 >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/2201+Civic+Circle,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Amarillo,+TX+79109?entry=gmail&source=g> >>>>>> Amarillo, TX 79109 >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/2201+Civic+Circle,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A++++++++++++Amarillo,+TX+79109?entry=gmail&source=g> >>>>>> >>>>>> www.herringbank.com >>>>>> >>>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail is intended only for the use of the >>>>>> individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information >>>>>> that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under >>>>>> applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail message is not the intended >>>>>> recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of the >>>>>> message >>>>>> to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any >>>>>> dissemination, >>>>>> distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have >>>>>> received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone >>>>>> at >>>>>> (303) 565-7001 and also indicate the sender's name. Thank you. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>
