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.

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.

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.

Hi @San-43,

Regarding the scope: the 'production-code changes' in #5665 weren't just extra additions; they are hardening fixes specifically required to address NullPointerExceptions and boundary errors that my 22+ test cases exposed. A tests-only PR (#5677) would pass on the current code but would leave these underlying stability issues unaddressed.

I believe it's critical for the project to not only have tests but to resolve the vulnerabilities those tests reveal. I'm happy to let the maintainers decide the best path forward, but I will be keeping #5665 active as a comprehensive solution for FINERACT-2494 that ensures both coverage and core stability.