FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund for re-aged progressive loans - #6344
Open
AshharAhmadKhan wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
…or re-aged progressive loans AdvancedPaymentScheduleTransactionProcessor.updateRepaymentPeriodBalances() did not exclude isAdditional() installments before calling ProgressiveEMICalculator.getDueAmounts(), which throws NoSuchElementException because additional installments (inserted by a prior re-age) are filtered out of the EMI model's repaymentPeriods at build time. This surfaced when a Merchant Issued Refund with MERCHANT_ISSUED_REFUND payment allocation and futureInstallmentAllocationRule = LAST_INSTALLMENT selected an additional installment as the in-advance target. The fix excludes isAdditional() installments the same way isDownPayment() installments are already excluded, consistent with the existing convention used elsewhere in this module (both are treated as 'special installments' excluded from EMI-model-based lookups).
Contributor
Author
|
Hey @adamsaghy , failure unrelated to my code. Please retrigger whenever possible. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
JIRA
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-2790
Problem
A Merchant Issued Refund on a progressive loan schedule crashes with an unwrapped NoSuchElementException when the loan has an "additional" installment in its persisted schedule (inserted by a prior re-age), the product has down payments enabled, and the payment allocation rule is MERCHANT_ISSUED_REFUND with futureInstallmentAllocationRule = LAST_INSTALLMENT.
The crash happens because AdvancedPaymentScheduleTransactionProcessor.updateRepaymentPeriodBalances() did not exclude isAdditional() installments before calling ProgressiveEMICalculator.getDueAmounts(). Additional installments are filtered out of the EMI model's repaymentPeriods at build time, so a lookup using an additional installment's dates has nothing to find.
Grepped all call sites of isDownPayment() and isAdditional() in fineract-progressive-loan/src/main/java and found 17 places where both are already excluded together. This is an established convention in the module: down payment and additional installments are both "special installments" excluded from EMI-model-based lookups. The LAST_INSTALLMENT selection logic already excludes isAdditional() from candidacy, so this was a downstream consumer that hadn't caught up to that rule, not a missing design decision.
Fix
Excludes isAdditional() installments in updateRepaymentPeriodBalances() the same way isDownPayment() installments are already excluded.
Verification
Added test coverage to the existing AdvancedPaymentScheduleTransactionProcessorTest and ProgressiveEMICalculatorTest suites (no standalone ticket-numbered test classes, per the module's convention):