FINERACT-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization - #6356

Open
Lea-Fan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom
Lea-Fan:codex/FINERACT-2787-remove-gsim-local-synchronization
Open

FINERACT-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization#6356
Lea-Fan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom
Lea-Fan:codex/FINERACT-2787-remove-gsim-local-synchronization

Conversation

@Lea-Fan

@Lea-FanLea-Fan commented Aug 29, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description

Remove the ineffective method-local synchronization block from submitGSIMApplication.

Each invocation created its own lock object, so concurrent requests were never coordinated. The existing for loop remains sequential, with no API or behavior change.

Related issue: FINERACT-2787

Testing

  • :fineract-provider:compileJava
  • spotlessCheck
  • :fineract-provider:checkstyleMain
  • GroupSavingsIntegrationTest.testGsimSavingsAccount_WithTwoClients_ChildCountTwo
  • Signed-commit verification

Checklist

Please make sure these boxes are checked before submitting your pull request - thanks!

  • Write the commit message as per our guidelines
  • Acknowledge that we will not review PRs that are not passing the build ("green") - it is your responsibility to get a proposed PR to pass the build, not primarily the project's maintainers.
  • Create/update unit or integration tests for verifying the changes made. The existing GSIM integration test covers this behavior; no test code change is required.
  • Follow our coding conventions.
  • Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation with details of any API changes. Not applicable; this change does not affect the API.
  • This PR must not be a "code dump". This PR changes one method in one file.
  • If merging this PR resolves a JIRA issue, I will mark that issue as resolved and set "Fix Version/s" appropriately.

@Lea-Fan
FINERACT-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization
57423c7
Remove the method-local lock from submitGSIMApplication because each invocation locks a different object and therefore cannot coordinate concurrent requests. The existing loop remains sequential and behavior is unchanged.
IOhacker
IOhacker requested changes Sep 1, 2026
View reviewed changes

@IOhackerIOhacker left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Add testing cases

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

Reviewers

@IOhackerIOhackerIOhacker requested changes

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.

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

@Lea-Fan@IOhacker
, '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-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization - #6356
Open
Lea-Fan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
Lea-Fan:codex/FINERACT-2787-remove-gsim-local-synchronization
Open
FINERACT-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization#6356
Lea-Fan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
Lea-Fan:codex/FINERACT-2787-remove-gsim-local-synchronization
Conversation
@Lea-Fan
@Lea-FanLea-Fan
commented
Aug 29, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Description
Remove the ineffective method-local synchronization block from submitGSIMApplication.
Each invocation created its own lock object, so concurrent requests were never coordinated. The existing for loop remains sequential, with no API or behavior change.
Related issue: FINERACT-2787
Testing
  • :fineract-provider:compileJava
  • spotlessCheck
  • :fineract-provider:checkstyleMain
  • GroupSavingsIntegrationTest.testGsimSavingsAccount_WithTwoClients_ChildCountTwo
  • Signed-commit verification
Checklist
Please make sure these boxes are checked before submitting your pull request - thanks!
  •  Write the commit message as per our guidelines
  •  Acknowledge that we will not review PRs that are not passing the build ("green") - it is your responsibility to get a proposed PR to pass the build, not primarily the project's maintainers.
  •  Create/update unit or integration tests for verifying the changes made. The existing GSIM integration test covers this behavior; no test code change is required.
  •  Follow our coding conventions.
  •  Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation with details of any API changes. Not applicable; this change does not affect the API.
  • This PR must not be a "code dump". This PR changes one method in one file.
  •  If merging this PR resolves a JIRA issue, I will mark that issue as resolved and set "Fix Version/s" appropriately.
@Lea-Fan
FINERACT-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization
57423c7
Remove the method-local lock from submitGSIMApplication because each invocation locks a different object and therefore cannot coordinate concurrent requests. The existing loop remains sequential and behavior is unchanged.
IOhacker
IOhacker
requested changes
Sep 1, 2026
View reviewed changes
@IOhackerIOhacker
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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

Reviewers

@IOhackerIOhackerIOhacker requested changes

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.


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

@Lea-Fan@IOhacker

, '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-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization - #6356
Open
Lea-Fan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
Lea-Fan:codex/FINERACT-2787-remove-gsim-local-synchronization
Open
FINERACT-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization#6356
Lea-Fan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
Lea-Fan:codex/FINERACT-2787-remove-gsim-local-synchronization
Conversation
@Lea-Fan
@Lea-FanLea-Fan
commented
Aug 29, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Description
Remove the ineffective method-local synchronization block from submitGSIMApplication.
Each invocation created its own lock object, so concurrent requests were never coordinated. The existing for loop remains sequential, with no API or behavior change.
Related issue: FINERACT-2787
Testing
  • :fineract-provider:compileJava
  • spotlessCheck
  • :fineract-provider:checkstyleMain
  • GroupSavingsIntegrationTest.testGsimSavingsAccount_WithTwoClients_ChildCountTwo
  • Signed-commit verification
Checklist
Please make sure these boxes are checked before submitting your pull request - thanks!
  •  Write the commit message as per our guidelines
  •  Acknowledge that we will not review PRs that are not passing the build ("green") - it is your responsibility to get a proposed PR to pass the build, not primarily the project's maintainers.
  •  Create/update unit or integration tests for verifying the changes made. The existing GSIM integration test covers this behavior; no test code change is required.
  •  Follow our coding conventions.
  •  Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation with details of any API changes. Not applicable; this change does not affect the API.
  • This PR must not be a "code dump". This PR changes one method in one file.
  •  If merging this PR resolves a JIRA issue, I will mark that issue as resolved and set "Fix Version/s" appropriately.
@Lea-Fan
FINERACT-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization
57423c7
Remove the method-local lock from submitGSIMApplication because each invocation locks a different object and therefore cannot coordinate concurrent requests. The existing loop remains sequential and behavior is unchanged.
IOhacker
IOhacker
requested changes
Sep 1, 2026
View reviewed changes
@IOhackerIOhacker
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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

Reviewers

@IOhackerIOhackerIOhacker requested changes

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.


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

@Lea-Fan@IOhacker

, '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-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization - #6356
Open
Lea-Fan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
Lea-Fan:codex/FINERACT-2787-remove-gsim-local-synchronization
Open
FINERACT-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization#6356
Lea-Fan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
Lea-Fan:codex/FINERACT-2787-remove-gsim-local-synchronization
Conversation
@Lea-Fan
@Lea-FanLea-Fan
commented
Aug 29, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Description
Remove the ineffective method-local synchronization block from submitGSIMApplication.
Each invocation created its own lock object, so concurrent requests were never coordinated. The existing for loop remains sequential, with no API or behavior change.
Related issue: FINERACT-2787
Testing
  • :fineract-provider:compileJava
  • spotlessCheck
  • :fineract-provider:checkstyleMain
  • GroupSavingsIntegrationTest.testGsimSavingsAccount_WithTwoClients_ChildCountTwo
  • Signed-commit verification
Checklist
Please make sure these boxes are checked before submitting your pull request - thanks!
  •  Write the commit message as per our guidelines
  •  Acknowledge that we will not review PRs that are not passing the build ("green") - it is your responsibility to get a proposed PR to pass the build, not primarily the project's maintainers.
  •  Create/update unit or integration tests for verifying the changes made. The existing GSIM integration test covers this behavior; no test code change is required.
  •  Follow our coding conventions.
  •  Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation with details of any API changes. Not applicable; this change does not affect the API.
  • This PR must not be a "code dump". This PR changes one method in one file.
  •  If merging this PR resolves a JIRA issue, I will mark that issue as resolved and set "Fix Version/s" appropriately.
@Lea-Fan
FINERACT-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization
57423c7
Remove the method-local lock from submitGSIMApplication because each invocation locks a different object and therefore cannot coordinate concurrent requests. The existing loop remains sequential and behavior is unchanged.
IOhacker
IOhacker
requested changes
Sep 1, 2026
View reviewed changes
@IOhackerIOhacker
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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

Reviewers

@IOhackerIOhackerIOhacker requested changes

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.


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

@Lea-Fan@IOhacker

, '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-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization - #6356
Open
Lea-Fan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
Lea-Fan:codex/FINERACT-2787-remove-gsim-local-synchronization
Open
FINERACT-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization#6356
Lea-Fan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
Lea-Fan:codex/FINERACT-2787-remove-gsim-local-synchronization
Conversation
@Lea-Fan
@Lea-FanLea-Fan
commented
Aug 29, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Description
Remove the ineffective method-local synchronization block from submitGSIMApplication.
Each invocation created its own lock object, so concurrent requests were never coordinated. The existing for loop remains sequential, with no API or behavior change.
Related issue: FINERACT-2787
Testing
  • :fineract-provider:compileJava
  • spotlessCheck
  • :fineract-provider:checkstyleMain
  • GroupSavingsIntegrationTest.testGsimSavingsAccount_WithTwoClients_ChildCountTwo
  • Signed-commit verification
Checklist
Please make sure these boxes are checked before submitting your pull request - thanks!
  •  Write the commit message as per our guidelines
  •  Acknowledge that we will not review PRs that are not passing the build ("green") - it is your responsibility to get a proposed PR to pass the build, not primarily the project's maintainers.
  •  Create/update unit or integration tests for verifying the changes made. The existing GSIM integration test covers this behavior; no test code change is required.
  •  Follow our coding conventions.
  •  Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation with details of any API changes. Not applicable; this change does not affect the API.
  • This PR must not be a "code dump". This PR changes one method in one file.
  •  If merging this PR resolves a JIRA issue, I will mark that issue as resolved and set "Fix Version/s" appropriately.
@Lea-Fan
FINERACT-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization
57423c7
Remove the method-local lock from submitGSIMApplication because each invocation locks a different object and therefore cannot coordinate concurrent requests. The existing loop remains sequential and behavior is unchanged.
IOhacker
IOhacker
requested changes
Sep 1, 2026
View reviewed changes
@IOhackerIOhacker
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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

Reviewers

@IOhackerIOhackerIOhacker requested changes

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.


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

@Lea-Fan@IOhacker

, '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-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization - #6356
Open
Lea-Fan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
Lea-Fan:codex/FINERACT-2787-remove-gsim-local-synchronization
Open
FINERACT-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization#6356
Lea-Fan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
Lea-Fan:codex/FINERACT-2787-remove-gsim-local-synchronization
Conversation
@Lea-Fan
@Lea-FanLea-Fan
commented
Aug 29, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Description
Remove the ineffective method-local synchronization block from submitGSIMApplication.
Each invocation created its own lock object, so concurrent requests were never coordinated. The existing for loop remains sequential, with no API or behavior change.
Related issue: FINERACT-2787
Testing
  • :fineract-provider:compileJava
  • spotlessCheck
  • :fineract-provider:checkstyleMain
  • GroupSavingsIntegrationTest.testGsimSavingsAccount_WithTwoClients_ChildCountTwo
  • Signed-commit verification
Checklist
Please make sure these boxes are checked before submitting your pull request - thanks!
  •  Write the commit message as per our guidelines
  •  Acknowledge that we will not review PRs that are not passing the build ("green") - it is your responsibility to get a proposed PR to pass the build, not primarily the project's maintainers.
  •  Create/update unit or integration tests for verifying the changes made. The existing GSIM integration test covers this behavior; no test code change is required.
  •  Follow our coding conventions.
  •  Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation with details of any API changes. Not applicable; this change does not affect the API.
  • This PR must not be a "code dump". This PR changes one method in one file.
  •  If merging this PR resolves a JIRA issue, I will mark that issue as resolved and set "Fix Version/s" appropriately.
@Lea-Fan
FINERACT-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization
57423c7
Remove the method-local lock from submitGSIMApplication because each invocation locks a different object and therefore cannot coordinate concurrent requests. The existing loop remains sequential and behavior is unchanged.
IOhacker
IOhacker
requested changes
Sep 1, 2026
View reviewed changes
@IOhackerIOhacker
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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

Reviewers

@IOhackerIOhackerIOhacker requested changes

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.


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

@Lea-Fan@IOhacker

, '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-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization - #6356
Open
Lea-Fan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
Lea-Fan:codex/FINERACT-2787-remove-gsim-local-synchronization
Open
FINERACT-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization#6356
Lea-Fan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
Lea-Fan:codex/FINERACT-2787-remove-gsim-local-synchronization
Conversation
@Lea-Fan
@Lea-FanLea-Fan
commented
Aug 29, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Description
Remove the ineffective method-local synchronization block from submitGSIMApplication.
Each invocation created its own lock object, so concurrent requests were never coordinated. The existing for loop remains sequential, with no API or behavior change.
Related issue: FINERACT-2787
Testing
  • :fineract-provider:compileJava
  • spotlessCheck
  • :fineract-provider:checkstyleMain
  • GroupSavingsIntegrationTest.testGsimSavingsAccount_WithTwoClients_ChildCountTwo
  • Signed-commit verification
Checklist
Please make sure these boxes are checked before submitting your pull request - thanks!
  •  Write the commit message as per our guidelines
  •  Acknowledge that we will not review PRs that are not passing the build ("green") - it is your responsibility to get a proposed PR to pass the build, not primarily the project's maintainers.
  •  Create/update unit or integration tests for verifying the changes made. The existing GSIM integration test covers this behavior; no test code change is required.
  •  Follow our coding conventions.
  •  Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation with details of any API changes. Not applicable; this change does not affect the API.
  • This PR must not be a "code dump". This PR changes one method in one file.
  •  If merging this PR resolves a JIRA issue, I will mark that issue as resolved and set "Fix Version/s" appropriately.
@Lea-Fan
FINERACT-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization
57423c7
Remove the method-local lock from submitGSIMApplication because each invocation locks a different object and therefore cannot coordinate concurrent requests. The existing loop remains sequential and behavior is unchanged.
IOhacker
IOhacker
requested changes
Sep 1, 2026
View reviewed changes
@IOhackerIOhacker
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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

Reviewers

@IOhackerIOhackerIOhacker requested changes

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.


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

@Lea-Fan@IOhacker

, '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-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization - #6356
Open
Lea-Fan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
Lea-Fan:codex/FINERACT-2787-remove-gsim-local-synchronization
Open
FINERACT-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization#6356
Lea-Fan wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:developfrom 
Lea-Fan:codex/FINERACT-2787-remove-gsim-local-synchronization
Conversation
@Lea-Fan
@Lea-FanLea-Fan
commented
Aug 29, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Description
Remove the ineffective method-local synchronization block from submitGSIMApplication.
Each invocation created its own lock object, so concurrent requests were never coordinated. The existing for loop remains sequential, with no API or behavior change.
Related issue: FINERACT-2787
Testing
  • :fineract-provider:compileJava
  • spotlessCheck
  • :fineract-provider:checkstyleMain
  • GroupSavingsIntegrationTest.testGsimSavingsAccount_WithTwoClients_ChildCountTwo
  • Signed-commit verification
Checklist
Please make sure these boxes are checked before submitting your pull request - thanks!
  •  Write the commit message as per our guidelines
  •  Acknowledge that we will not review PRs that are not passing the build ("green") - it is your responsibility to get a proposed PR to pass the build, not primarily the project's maintainers.
  •  Create/update unit or integration tests for verifying the changes made. The existing GSIM integration test covers this behavior; no test code change is required.
  •  Follow our coding conventions.
  •  Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation with details of any API changes. Not applicable; this change does not affect the API.
  • This PR must not be a "code dump". This PR changes one method in one file.
  •  If merging this PR resolves a JIRA issue, I will mark that issue as resolved and set "Fix Version/s" appropriately.
@Lea-Fan
FINERACT-2787: Remove ineffective GSIM application synchronization
57423c7
Remove the method-local lock from submitGSIMApplication because each invocation locks a different object and therefore cannot coordinate concurrent requests. The existing loop remains sequential and behavior is unchanged.
IOhacker
IOhacker
requested changes
Sep 1, 2026
View reviewed changes
@IOhackerIOhacker
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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

Reviewers

@IOhackerIOhackerIOhacker requested changes

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.


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

@Lea-Fan@IOhacker