FINERACT-2494: Add unit tests for ApiParameterHelper in fineract-core.

[San-43]

Description

This PR fixes FINERACT-2494.

New test coverage for API parameter extraction and parsing:

• Added ApiParameterHelperTest with tests for extracting and validating commandId, fields, associations, and locale from query parameters, including handling of missing, blank, invalid, and duplicate values.
• Included tests for boolean query parameter parsing for methods such as parameterType, template, makerCheckerable, includeJson, and genericResultSet, verifying correct handling of true, false, and missing values.
• Provided tests for exclusion logic in associations and for presence checks on the genericResultSet flag.
• Added a helper method to simplify test parameter creation, improving readability and maintainability of the test code.

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.
• 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.

Your assigned reviewer(s) will follow our guidelines for code reviews.

[Ambika-Sony]

Hi @San-43 , I see you're working on this issue!

I’ve already submitted PR #5665 addressing FINERACT-2494. My approach focuses on building a comprehensive unit test suite for ApiParameterHelper, including coverage for edge cases such as null handling, negative offsets, malformed inputs, and boundary conditions.

The tests are designed as isolated JUnit 5 unit tests to ensure reliability and maintainability within fineract-core, and I’m also aligning with static analysis improvements from FINERACT-2510.

Happy to align approaches or incorporate any feedback from the community.

[San-43]

Hi @Ambika-Sony, thanks for the note and for your work on this. I actually hadn’t noticed #5665 when I started #5677. I saw a couple of closed PR targeting FINERACT-2494, but I missed #5665, apologies for that.

After comparing #5665 and #5677, my view is that #5677 is a bit cleaner for FINERACT-2494 because it keeps the change strictly tests-only, in line with the ticket scope. In #5665, there are also ApiParameterHelper production-code changes; those hardening updates are valuable, but they may be better handled in a separate PR/ticket so scope and review impact stay clear.

I’m happy to align and avoid duplication. If maintainers prefer a single path, I can either:

1. close this PR, or
2. keep this one for tests-only and leave behavior changes to a follow-up PR.

Happy to follow maintainer guidance either way.