Dhanno98 commented on code in PR #5940:
URL: https://github.com/apache/fineract/pull/5940#discussion_r3500253157
##########
fineract-provider/src/main/java/org/apache/fineract/portfolio/accounts/api/AccountsApiResourceSwagger.java:
##########
@@ -465,15 +465,26 @@ public static final class
PostAccountsTypeAccountIdRequest {
private PostAccountsTypeAccountIdRequest() {}
+ @Schema(example = "en")
+ public String locale;
+ @Schema(example = "dd MMMM yyyy")
+ public String dateFormat;
+ @Schema(example = "01 January 2026")
+ public String activatedDate;
+ @Schema(example = "05 May 2026")
+ public String requestedDate;
+ @Schema(example = "01 January 2026")
+ public String closedDate;
+ @Schema(description = "Can represent either number of shares or
transaction IDs")
+ public Object requestedShares;
+
static final class PostAccountsRequestedShares {
private PostAccountsRequestedShares() {}
@Schema(example = "35")
public Long id;
}
-
- public Set<PostAccountsRequestedShares> requestedShares;
}
Review Comment:
Thanks! One question for future reference.
Initially I had updated the OpenAPI/Swagger definitions so that the
generated client models (`PostAccountsTypeAccountIdRequest` and
`PostClientsClientIdChargesRequest`) would support these scenarios directly,
but I reverted those changes because the API backward compatibility check
failed.
From your comment, am I correct in understanding that such Swagger or
OpenAPI changes are acceptable even if they cause the backward compatibility
check to fail, provided the API change is intentional?
If so, would you prefer that kind of generated-client improvement be
included in the same PR when needed, or handled separately in its own PR?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
