FINERACT-817: Provide values of entity property for Entity Data Table Checks

[Eyad-Sharkawy]

Description

Previously, the Entity Data Table Checks API (/v1/entityDatatableChecks) only returned the internal table name string for the entity field (e.g. "m_client") instead of structured enum option data containing human-readable display values.

This PR addresses FINERACT-817 by:

1. Enhancing the EntityTables enum with human-readable display labels (e.g., "Client", "Loan") and adding a toEnumOptionData() method that returns StringEnumOptionData (id, code, value).
2. Introducing a new entityData property to EntityDataTableChecksData using StringEnumOptionData to provide the structured values to modern clients, while preserving the legacy entity string property to maintain backward compatibility for existing deployments.
3. Updating EntityDatatableChecksReadPlatformServiceImpl to populate the new entityData field using EntityTables.fromEntityName(entity).toEnumOptionData().
4. Updating the Swagger documentation in EntityDatatableChecksApiResourceSwagger to reflect the newly added entityData object.
5. Adding unit tests in EntityTablesTest to verify enum option mapping and reverse lookup.

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.
• Follow our coding conventions.
• Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation at fineract-provider/src/main/resources/static/legacy-docs/apiLive.htm with details of any API changes
• This PR must not be a "code dump". Large changes can be made in a branch, with assistance. Ask for help on the developer mailing list.
• If merging this PR resolves a JIRA issue, I will mark that issue as resolved and set "Fix Version/s" appropriately.

[Eyad-Sharkawy]

Hi team, the API compatibility check failed because changing the entity field from a String to an EnumOptionData object is a breaking change, as requested in FINERACT-817. How does the Fineract team prefer to handle intentional API contract changes? Should I add a label to bypass this, or preserve the original entity string and add a new field instead?

[Eyad-Sharkawy]

Description

Previously, the Entity Data Table Checks API (/v1/entityDatatableChecks) only returned the internal table name string for the entity field (e.g. "m_client") instead of structured enum option data containing human-readable display values.

This PR addresses FINERACT-817 by:

1. Enhancing the EntityTables enum with human-readable display labels (e.g., "Client", "Loan") and adding a toEnumOptionData() method that returns StringEnumOptionData (id, code, value).
2. Introducing a new entityData property to EntityDataTableChecksData using StringEnumOptionData to provide the structured values to modern clients, while preserving the legacy entity string property to maintain backward compatibility for existing deployments.
3. Updating EntityDatatableChecksReadPlatformServiceImpl to populate the new entityData field using EntityTables.fromEntityName(entity).toEnumOptionData().
4. Updating the Swagger documentation in EntityDatatableChecksApiResourceSwagger to reflect the newly added entityData object.
5. Adding unit tests in EntityTablesTest to verify enum option mapping and reverse lookup.

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.
• Follow our coding conventions.
• Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation at fineract-provider/src/main/resources/static/legacy-docs/apiLive.htm with details of any API changes
• This PR must not be a "code dump". Large changes can be made in a branch, with assistance. Ask for help on the developer mailing list.
• If merging this PR resolves a JIRA issue, I will mark that issue as resolved and set "Fix Version/s" appropriately.

[Eyad-Sharkawy]

Hi team, the API compatibility check failed because changing the entity field from a String to an EnumOptionData object is a breaking change, as requested in FINERACT-817. How does the Fineract team prefer to handle intentional API contract changes? Should I add a label to bypass this, or preserve the original entity string and add a new field instead?

[Eyad-Sharkawy]

Description

Previously, the Entity Data Table Checks API (/v1/entityDatatableChecks) only returned the internal table name string for the entity field (e.g. "m_client") instead of structured enum option data containing human-readable display values.

This PR addresses FINERACT-817 by:

1. Enhancing the EntityTables enum with human-readable display labels (e.g., "Client", "Loan") and adding a toEnumOptionData() method that returns StringEnumOptionData (id, code, value).
2. Introducing a new entityData property to EntityDataTableChecksData using StringEnumOptionData to provide the structured values to modern clients, while preserving the legacy entity string property to maintain backward compatibility for existing deployments.
3. Updating EntityDatatableChecksReadPlatformServiceImpl to populate the new entityData field using EntityTables.fromEntityName(entity).toEnumOptionData().
4. Updating the Swagger documentation in EntityDatatableChecksApiResourceSwagger to reflect the newly added entityData object.
5. Adding unit tests in EntityTablesTest to verify enum option mapping and reverse lookup.

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.
• Follow our coding conventions.
• Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation at fineract-provider/src/main/resources/static/legacy-docs/apiLive.htm with details of any API changes
• This PR must not be a "code dump". Large changes can be made in a branch, with assistance. Ask for help on the developer mailing list.
• If merging this PR resolves a JIRA issue, I will mark that issue as resolved and set "Fix Version/s" appropriately.

[Eyad-Sharkawy]

Hi team, the API compatibility check failed because changing the entity field from a String to an EnumOptionData object is a breaking change, as requested in FINERACT-817. How does the Fineract team prefer to handle intentional API contract changes? Should I add a label to bypass this, or preserve the original entity string and add a new field instead?

[Eyad-Sharkawy]

Description

Previously, the Entity Data Table Checks API (/v1/entityDatatableChecks) only returned the internal table name string for the entity field (e.g. "m_client") instead of structured enum option data containing human-readable display values.

This PR addresses FINERACT-817 by:

1. Enhancing the EntityTables enum with human-readable display labels (e.g., "Client", "Loan") and adding a toEnumOptionData() method that returns StringEnumOptionData (id, code, value).
2. Introducing a new entityData property to EntityDataTableChecksData using StringEnumOptionData to provide the structured values to modern clients, while preserving the legacy entity string property to maintain backward compatibility for existing deployments.
3. Updating EntityDatatableChecksReadPlatformServiceImpl to populate the new entityData field using EntityTables.fromEntityName(entity).toEnumOptionData().
4. Updating the Swagger documentation in EntityDatatableChecksApiResourceSwagger to reflect the newly added entityData object.
5. Adding unit tests in EntityTablesTest to verify enum option mapping and reverse lookup.

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.
• Follow our coding conventions.
• Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation at fineract-provider/src/main/resources/static/legacy-docs/apiLive.htm with details of any API changes
• This PR must not be a "code dump". Large changes can be made in a branch, with assistance. Ask for help on the developer mailing list.
• If merging this PR resolves a JIRA issue, I will mark that issue as resolved and set "Fix Version/s" appropriately.

[Eyad-Sharkawy]

Hi team, the API compatibility check failed because changing the entity field from a String to an EnumOptionData object is a breaking change, as requested in FINERACT-817. How does the Fineract team prefer to handle intentional API contract changes? Should I add a label to bypass this, or preserve the original entity string and add a new field instead?

[Eyad-Sharkawy]

Description

Previously, the Entity Data Table Checks API (/v1/entityDatatableChecks) only returned the internal table name string for the entity field (e.g. "m_client") instead of structured enum option data containing human-readable display values.

This PR addresses FINERACT-817 by:

1. Enhancing the EntityTables enum with human-readable display labels (e.g., "Client", "Loan") and adding a toEnumOptionData() method that returns StringEnumOptionData (id, code, value).
2. Introducing a new entityData property to EntityDataTableChecksData using StringEnumOptionData to provide the structured values to modern clients, while preserving the legacy entity string property to maintain backward compatibility for existing deployments.
3. Updating EntityDatatableChecksReadPlatformServiceImpl to populate the new entityData field using EntityTables.fromEntityName(entity).toEnumOptionData().
4. Updating the Swagger documentation in EntityDatatableChecksApiResourceSwagger to reflect the newly added entityData object.
5. Adding unit tests in EntityTablesTest to verify enum option mapping and reverse lookup.

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.
• Follow our coding conventions.
• Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation at fineract-provider/src/main/resources/static/legacy-docs/apiLive.htm with details of any API changes
• This PR must not be a "code dump". Large changes can be made in a branch, with assistance. Ask for help on the developer mailing list.
• If merging this PR resolves a JIRA issue, I will mark that issue as resolved and set "Fix Version/s" appropriately.

[Eyad-Sharkawy]

Hi team, the API compatibility check failed because changing the entity field from a String to an EnumOptionData object is a breaking change, as requested in FINERACT-817. How does the Fineract team prefer to handle intentional API contract changes? Should I add a label to bypass this, or preserve the original entity string and add a new field instead?

[Eyad-Sharkawy]

Description

Previously, the Entity Data Table Checks API (/v1/entityDatatableChecks) only returned the internal table name string for the entity field (e.g. "m_client") instead of structured enum option data containing human-readable display values.

This PR addresses FINERACT-817 by:

1. Enhancing the EntityTables enum with human-readable display labels (e.g., "Client", "Loan") and adding a toEnumOptionData() method that returns StringEnumOptionData (id, code, value).
2. Introducing a new entityData property to EntityDataTableChecksData using StringEnumOptionData to provide the structured values to modern clients, while preserving the legacy entity string property to maintain backward compatibility for existing deployments.
3. Updating EntityDatatableChecksReadPlatformServiceImpl to populate the new entityData field using EntityTables.fromEntityName(entity).toEnumOptionData().
4. Updating the Swagger documentation in EntityDatatableChecksApiResourceSwagger to reflect the newly added entityData object.
5. Adding unit tests in EntityTablesTest to verify enum option mapping and reverse lookup.

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.
• Follow our coding conventions.
• Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation at fineract-provider/src/main/resources/static/legacy-docs/apiLive.htm with details of any API changes
• This PR must not be a "code dump". Large changes can be made in a branch, with assistance. Ask for help on the developer mailing list.
• If merging this PR resolves a JIRA issue, I will mark that issue as resolved and set "Fix Version/s" appropriately.

[Eyad-Sharkawy]

Hi team, the API compatibility check failed because changing the entity field from a String to an EnumOptionData object is a breaking change, as requested in FINERACT-817. How does the Fineract team prefer to handle intentional API contract changes? Should I add a label to bypass this, or preserve the original entity string and add a new field instead?

[Eyad-Sharkawy]

Description

Previously, the Entity Data Table Checks API (/v1/entityDatatableChecks) only returned the internal table name string for the entity field (e.g. "m_client") instead of structured enum option data containing human-readable display values.

This PR addresses FINERACT-817 by:

1. Enhancing the EntityTables enum with human-readable display labels (e.g., "Client", "Loan") and adding a toEnumOptionData() method that returns StringEnumOptionData (id, code, value).
2. Introducing a new entityData property to EntityDataTableChecksData using StringEnumOptionData to provide the structured values to modern clients, while preserving the legacy entity string property to maintain backward compatibility for existing deployments.
3. Updating EntityDatatableChecksReadPlatformServiceImpl to populate the new entityData field using EntityTables.fromEntityName(entity).toEnumOptionData().
4. Updating the Swagger documentation in EntityDatatableChecksApiResourceSwagger to reflect the newly added entityData object.
5. Adding unit tests in EntityTablesTest to verify enum option mapping and reverse lookup.

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.
• Follow our coding conventions.
• Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation at fineract-provider/src/main/resources/static/legacy-docs/apiLive.htm with details of any API changes
• This PR must not be a "code dump". Large changes can be made in a branch, with assistance. Ask for help on the developer mailing list.
• If merging this PR resolves a JIRA issue, I will mark that issue as resolved and set "Fix Version/s" appropriately.

[Eyad-Sharkawy]

Hi team, the API compatibility check failed because changing the entity field from a String to an EnumOptionData object is a breaking change, as requested in FINERACT-817. How does the Fineract team prefer to handle intentional API contract changes? Should I add a label to bypass this, or preserve the original entity string and add a new field instead?

[Eyad-Sharkawy]

Description

Previously, the Entity Data Table Checks API (/v1/entityDatatableChecks) only returned the internal table name string for the entity field (e.g. "m_client") instead of structured enum option data containing human-readable display values.

This PR addresses FINERACT-817 by:

1. Enhancing the EntityTables enum with human-readable display labels (e.g., "Client", "Loan") and adding a toEnumOptionData() method that returns StringEnumOptionData (id, code, value).
2. Introducing a new entityData property to EntityDataTableChecksData using StringEnumOptionData to provide the structured values to modern clients, while preserving the legacy entity string property to maintain backward compatibility for existing deployments.
3. Updating EntityDatatableChecksReadPlatformServiceImpl to populate the new entityData field using EntityTables.fromEntityName(entity).toEnumOptionData().
4. Updating the Swagger documentation in EntityDatatableChecksApiResourceSwagger to reflect the newly added entityData object.
5. Adding unit tests in EntityTablesTest to verify enum option mapping and reverse lookup.

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.
• Follow our coding conventions.
• Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation at fineract-provider/src/main/resources/static/legacy-docs/apiLive.htm with details of any API changes
• This PR must not be a "code dump". Large changes can be made in a branch, with assistance. Ask for help on the developer mailing list.
• If merging this PR resolves a JIRA issue, I will mark that issue as resolved and set "Fix Version/s" appropriately.

[Eyad-Sharkawy]

Hi team, the API compatibility check failed because changing the entity field from a String to an EnumOptionData object is a breaking change, as requested in FINERACT-817. How does the Fineract team prefer to handle intentional API contract changes? Should I add a label to bypass this, or preserve the original entity string and add a new field instead?