FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund for re-aged progressive loans - #6344

Open
AshharAhmadKhan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom
AshharAhmadKhan:FINERACT-2790-merchant-refund-additional-installment
Open

FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund for re-aged progressive loans#6344
AshharAhmadKhan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom
AshharAhmadKhan:FINERACT-2790-merchant-refund-additional-installment

Conversation

@AshharAhmadKhan

@AshharAhmadKhanAshharAhmadKhan commented Aug 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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):

  • updateRepaymentPeriodBalancesSkipsAdditionalInstallmentAndAppliesPaymentDirectly asserts getDueAmounts() is never called for an additional installment and that the payment is applied directly to its own persisted principal balance instead.
  • getDueAmountsThrowsNoSuchElementExceptionForAdditionalInstallment reproduces the original crash mechanism directly against ProgressiveEMICalculator.

@AshharAhmadKhan
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund f…
647b7ad
…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).
@AshharAhmadKhan

AshharAhmadKhan commented Aug 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Hey @adamsaghy , failure unrelated to my code. Please retrigger whenever possible.

@AshharAhmadKhan

AshharAhmadKhan commented Aug 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

hey @adamsaghy , please let me know your thoughts on this one, thanks!

@adamsaghy

adamsaghy commented Aug 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@AshharAhmadKhan Thank you for your interest in this, but one of my DEV is already working on this, i would like to see what the diff between the two PRs

@AshharAhmadKhan

AshharAhmadKhan commented Aug 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

@AshharAhmadKhan Thank you for your interest in this, but one of my DEV is already working on this, i would like to see what the diff between the two PRs

Hey @adamsaghy, checked PR #6347. The main fix is identical to mine, same guard clause. The difference is #6347 also adds a second layer of protection in ProgressiveEMICalculator, plus two integration tests that reproduce the actual production scenario.

I've only done unit tests on mine. Happy to close this one once #6347 is out of draft and passing, or you can decide either way, just let me know.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@AshharAhmadKhan@adamsaghy
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all 
 blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

Skip to content
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund for re-aged progressive loans - #6344
Open
AshharAhmadKhan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
AshharAhmadKhan:FINERACT-2790-merchant-refund-additional-installment
Open
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund for re-aged progressive loans#6344
AshharAhmadKhan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
AshharAhmadKhan:FINERACT-2790-merchant-refund-additional-installment
Conversation
@AshharAhmadKhan
@AshharAhmadKhanAshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 27, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
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):
  • updateRepaymentPeriodBalancesSkipsAdditionalInstallmentAndAppliesPaymentDirectly asserts getDueAmounts() is never called for an additional installment and that the payment is applied directly to its own persisted principal balance instead.
  • getDueAmountsThrowsNoSuchElementExceptionForAdditionalInstallment reproduces the original crash mechanism directly against ProgressiveEMICalculator.
@AshharAhmadKhan
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund f…
647b7ad
…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).
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 27, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Hey @adamsaghy , failure unrelated to my code. Please retrigger whenever possible.
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
hey @adamsaghy , please let me know your thoughts on this one, thanks!
@adamsaghy
adamsaghy
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@AshharAhmadKhan Thank you for your interest in this, but one of my DEV is already working on this, i would like to see what the diff between the two PRs
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@AshharAhmadKhan Thank you for your interest in this, but one of my DEV is already working on this, i would like to see what the diff between the two PRs
Hey @adamsaghy, checked PR #6347. The main fix is identical to mine, same guard clause. The difference is #6347 also adds a second layer of protection in ProgressiveEMICalculator, plus two integration tests that reproduce the actual production scenario.
I've only done unit tests on mine. Happy to close this one once #6347 is out of draft and passing, or you can decide either way, just let me know.
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@AshharAhmadKhan@adamsaghy

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund for re-aged progressive loans - #6344
Open
AshharAhmadKhan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
AshharAhmadKhan:FINERACT-2790-merchant-refund-additional-installment
Open
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund for re-aged progressive loans#6344
AshharAhmadKhan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
AshharAhmadKhan:FINERACT-2790-merchant-refund-additional-installment
Conversation
@AshharAhmadKhan
@AshharAhmadKhanAshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 27, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
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):
  • updateRepaymentPeriodBalancesSkipsAdditionalInstallmentAndAppliesPaymentDirectly asserts getDueAmounts() is never called for an additional installment and that the payment is applied directly to its own persisted principal balance instead.
  • getDueAmountsThrowsNoSuchElementExceptionForAdditionalInstallment reproduces the original crash mechanism directly against ProgressiveEMICalculator.
@AshharAhmadKhan
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund f…
647b7ad
…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).
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 27, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Hey @adamsaghy , failure unrelated to my code. Please retrigger whenever possible.
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
hey @adamsaghy , please let me know your thoughts on this one, thanks!
@adamsaghy
adamsaghy
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@AshharAhmadKhan Thank you for your interest in this, but one of my DEV is already working on this, i would like to see what the diff between the two PRs
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@AshharAhmadKhan Thank you for your interest in this, but one of my DEV is already working on this, i would like to see what the diff between the two PRs
Hey @adamsaghy, checked PR #6347. The main fix is identical to mine, same guard clause. The difference is #6347 also adds a second layer of protection in ProgressiveEMICalculator, plus two integration tests that reproduce the actual production scenario.
I've only done unit tests on mine. Happy to close this one once #6347 is out of draft and passing, or you can decide either way, just let me know.
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@AshharAhmadKhan@adamsaghy

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund for re-aged progressive loans - #6344
Open
AshharAhmadKhan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
AshharAhmadKhan:FINERACT-2790-merchant-refund-additional-installment
Open
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund for re-aged progressive loans#6344
AshharAhmadKhan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
AshharAhmadKhan:FINERACT-2790-merchant-refund-additional-installment
Conversation
@AshharAhmadKhan
@AshharAhmadKhanAshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 27, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
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):
  • updateRepaymentPeriodBalancesSkipsAdditionalInstallmentAndAppliesPaymentDirectly asserts getDueAmounts() is never called for an additional installment and that the payment is applied directly to its own persisted principal balance instead.
  • getDueAmountsThrowsNoSuchElementExceptionForAdditionalInstallment reproduces the original crash mechanism directly against ProgressiveEMICalculator.
@AshharAhmadKhan
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund f…
647b7ad
…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).
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 27, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Hey @adamsaghy , failure unrelated to my code. Please retrigger whenever possible.
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
hey @adamsaghy , please let me know your thoughts on this one, thanks!
@adamsaghy
adamsaghy
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@AshharAhmadKhan Thank you for your interest in this, but one of my DEV is already working on this, i would like to see what the diff between the two PRs
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@AshharAhmadKhan Thank you for your interest in this, but one of my DEV is already working on this, i would like to see what the diff between the two PRs
Hey @adamsaghy, checked PR #6347. The main fix is identical to mine, same guard clause. The difference is #6347 also adds a second layer of protection in ProgressiveEMICalculator, plus two integration tests that reproduce the actual production scenario.
I've only done unit tests on mine. Happy to close this one once #6347 is out of draft and passing, or you can decide either way, just let me know.
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@AshharAhmadKhan@adamsaghy

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

Skip to content
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund for re-aged progressive loans - #6344
Open
AshharAhmadKhan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
AshharAhmadKhan:FINERACT-2790-merchant-refund-additional-installment
Open
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund for re-aged progressive loans#6344
AshharAhmadKhan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
AshharAhmadKhan:FINERACT-2790-merchant-refund-additional-installment
Conversation
@AshharAhmadKhan
@AshharAhmadKhanAshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 27, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
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):
  • updateRepaymentPeriodBalancesSkipsAdditionalInstallmentAndAppliesPaymentDirectly asserts getDueAmounts() is never called for an additional installment and that the payment is applied directly to its own persisted principal balance instead.
  • getDueAmountsThrowsNoSuchElementExceptionForAdditionalInstallment reproduces the original crash mechanism directly against ProgressiveEMICalculator.
@AshharAhmadKhan
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund f…
647b7ad
…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).
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 27, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Hey @adamsaghy , failure unrelated to my code. Please retrigger whenever possible.
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
hey @adamsaghy , please let me know your thoughts on this one, thanks!
@adamsaghy
adamsaghy
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@AshharAhmadKhan Thank you for your interest in this, but one of my DEV is already working on this, i would like to see what the diff between the two PRs
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@AshharAhmadKhan Thank you for your interest in this, but one of my DEV is already working on this, i would like to see what the diff between the two PRs
Hey @adamsaghy, checked PR #6347. The main fix is identical to mine, same guard clause. The difference is #6347 also adds a second layer of protection in ProgressiveEMICalculator, plus two integration tests that reproduce the actual production scenario.
I've only done unit tests on mine. Happy to close this one once #6347 is out of draft and passing, or you can decide either way, just let me know.
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@AshharAhmadKhan@adamsaghy

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund for re-aged progressive loans - #6344
Open
AshharAhmadKhan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
AshharAhmadKhan:FINERACT-2790-merchant-refund-additional-installment
Open
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund for re-aged progressive loans#6344
AshharAhmadKhan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
AshharAhmadKhan:FINERACT-2790-merchant-refund-additional-installment
Conversation
@AshharAhmadKhan
@AshharAhmadKhanAshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 27, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
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):
  • updateRepaymentPeriodBalancesSkipsAdditionalInstallmentAndAppliesPaymentDirectly asserts getDueAmounts() is never called for an additional installment and that the payment is applied directly to its own persisted principal balance instead.
  • getDueAmountsThrowsNoSuchElementExceptionForAdditionalInstallment reproduces the original crash mechanism directly against ProgressiveEMICalculator.
@AshharAhmadKhan
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund f…
647b7ad
…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).
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 27, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Hey @adamsaghy , failure unrelated to my code. Please retrigger whenever possible.
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
hey @adamsaghy , please let me know your thoughts on this one, thanks!
@adamsaghy
adamsaghy
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@AshharAhmadKhan Thank you for your interest in this, but one of my DEV is already working on this, i would like to see what the diff between the two PRs
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@AshharAhmadKhan Thank you for your interest in this, but one of my DEV is already working on this, i would like to see what the diff between the two PRs
Hey @adamsaghy, checked PR #6347. The main fix is identical to mine, same guard clause. The difference is #6347 also adds a second layer of protection in ProgressiveEMICalculator, plus two integration tests that reproduce the actual production scenario.
I've only done unit tests on mine. Happy to close this one once #6347 is out of draft and passing, or you can decide either way, just let me know.
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@AshharAhmadKhan@adamsaghy

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund for re-aged progressive loans - #6344
Open
AshharAhmadKhan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
AshharAhmadKhan:FINERACT-2790-merchant-refund-additional-installment
Open
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund for re-aged progressive loans#6344
AshharAhmadKhan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
AshharAhmadKhan:FINERACT-2790-merchant-refund-additional-installment
Conversation
@AshharAhmadKhan
@AshharAhmadKhanAshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 27, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
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):
  • updateRepaymentPeriodBalancesSkipsAdditionalInstallmentAndAppliesPaymentDirectly asserts getDueAmounts() is never called for an additional installment and that the payment is applied directly to its own persisted principal balance instead.
  • getDueAmountsThrowsNoSuchElementExceptionForAdditionalInstallment reproduces the original crash mechanism directly against ProgressiveEMICalculator.
@AshharAhmadKhan
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund f…
647b7ad
…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).
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 27, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Hey @adamsaghy , failure unrelated to my code. Please retrigger whenever possible.
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
hey @adamsaghy , please let me know your thoughts on this one, thanks!
@adamsaghy
adamsaghy
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@AshharAhmadKhan Thank you for your interest in this, but one of my DEV is already working on this, i would like to see what the diff between the two PRs
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@AshharAhmadKhan Thank you for your interest in this, but one of my DEV is already working on this, i would like to see what the diff between the two PRs
Hey @adamsaghy, checked PR #6347. The main fix is identical to mine, same guard clause. The difference is #6347 also adds a second layer of protection in ProgressiveEMICalculator, plus two integration tests that reproduce the actual production scenario.
I've only done unit tests on mine. Happy to close this one once #6347 is out of draft and passing, or you can decide either way, just let me know.
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@AshharAhmadKhan@adamsaghy

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

Skip to content
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund for re-aged progressive loans - #6344
Open
AshharAhmadKhan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
AshharAhmadKhan:FINERACT-2790-merchant-refund-additional-installment
Open
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund for re-aged progressive loans#6344
AshharAhmadKhan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
AshharAhmadKhan:FINERACT-2790-merchant-refund-additional-installment
Conversation
@AshharAhmadKhan
@AshharAhmadKhanAshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 27, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
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):
  • updateRepaymentPeriodBalancesSkipsAdditionalInstallmentAndAppliesPaymentDirectly asserts getDueAmounts() is never called for an additional installment and that the payment is applied directly to its own persisted principal balance instead.
  • getDueAmountsThrowsNoSuchElementExceptionForAdditionalInstallment reproduces the original crash mechanism directly against ProgressiveEMICalculator.
@AshharAhmadKhan
FINERACT-2790: Fix NoSuchElementException on Merchant Issued Refund f…
647b7ad
…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).
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 27, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Hey @adamsaghy , failure unrelated to my code. Please retrigger whenever possible.
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
hey @adamsaghy , please let me know your thoughts on this one, thanks!
@adamsaghy
adamsaghy
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@AshharAhmadKhan Thank you for your interest in this, but one of my DEV is already working on this, i would like to see what the diff between the two PRs
@AshharAhmadKhan
AshharAhmadKhan
commented
Aug 28, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
@AshharAhmadKhan Thank you for your interest in this, but one of my DEV is already working on this, i would like to see what the diff between the two PRs
Hey @adamsaghy, checked PR #6347. The main fix is identical to mine, same guard clause. The difference is #6347 also adds a second layer of protection in ProgressiveEMICalculator, plus two integration tests that reproduce the actual production scenario.
I've only done unit tests on mine. Happy to close this one once #6347 is out of draft and passing, or you can decide either way, just let me know.
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@AshharAhmadKhan@adamsaghy