FINERACT-2587: Remove CLIENTCHARGE|INACTIVATE write path (never implemented since 2015)

[AshharAhmadKhan]

Description

POST /clients/{clientId}/charges/{chargeId}?command=inactivate has thrown
error.msg.command.unsupported on every call since August 2015 and has never
returned a successful response in any version of Fineract or its predecessor MifosX.

The service method inactivateCharge() was a stub returning null from its very
first commit (d0fd3e4a6c, August 17 2015, Vishwas Babu A J). No command handler
for CLIENTCHARGE|INACTIVATE was ever registered in any commit across the full
repository history. git log --all -S "clientCharge.inactivate" returns zero results.

Runtime confirmation against apache/fineract:latest (April 2026): HTTP 400,
error.msg.command.unsupported. m_portfolio_command_source shows
made_on_date=NULL, status=5 — rejected before any processing began.
m_client_charge.is_active was never written. Historical record showed zero
prior attempts before the validation run.

Following community discussion on the DEV list, architectural direction from
Victor (charges should be account-associated, not client-associated) and
confirmation from PMC Chair James Dailey, this PR removes the write path
scaffolding (Phase 1 only).

What this PR removes:

• else if routing branch for command=inactivate in ClientChargesApiResource
• inactivateCharge() interface method and null stub implementation in ClientChargeWritePlatformService and ClientChargeWritePlatformServiceImpl
• inactivateClientCharge() builder method in CommandWrapperBuilder
• CLIENT_CHARGE_ACTION_INACTIVATE and CLIENT_CHARGE_COMMAND_INACTIVATE_CHARGE constants from ClientApiConstants
• Liquibase changeset 0228 deleting INACTIVATE_CLIENTCHARGE and INACTIVATE_CLIENTCHARGE_CHECKER from m_permission
• Corresponding rows in barebones_db.sql and load_sample_data.sql

What this PR does NOT remove (Phase 2 decision):

• isActive and inactivationDate from the GET /clients/{clientId}/charges response — removing these fields changes the response contract and requires a separate deprecation notice

Observable behavior change for callers:

• Before: ?command=inactivate → HTTP 400, error.msg.command.unsupported
• After: ?command=inactivate → HTTP 400, error.msg.unrecognized.param
• HTTP status code does not change. This command has never produced a successful response.

References:

• JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-2587
• Related ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-2545
• DEV list thread (72-hour notice posted April 9, 2026, three +1s received): https://lists.apache.org/thread/lhh0hx0t2y7vzdrs98fg3qyfx1xo9d0y
• Original investigation PR: FINERACT-2545: Implement client charge inactivation #5655

[AshharAhmadKhan]

@adamsaghy failure unrelated to my code. Please re run it when you get a chance!

[IOhacker]

Lgtm

[AshharAhmadKhan]

Hi @adamsaghy , could you take a look at this when you have time? I’ve rechecked everything and it looks good from my side. If you have any suggestions, please let me know.

[AshharAhmadKhan]

Hi @adamsaghy , rebased onto latest develop, changeset renumbered from 0228 to 0229. Also failure unrelated to my code, so please re - trigger it when you get a chance!

[Aman-Mittal]

Seems OK, Implementation are properly removed and liquibase migration script is maintained

[AshharAhmadKhan]

Hi @adamsaghy , just circling back on this, would value your feedback whenever you get the chance.

[IOhacker]

LGTM

[IOhacker]

@AshharAhmadKhan there is a conflict to be solved... could you please help us?

[IOhacker]

LGTM

[AshharAhmadKhan]

Hi @adamsaghy @IOhacker , changeset renumbered from 0229 to 0230, all conflicts resolved!

[adamsaghy]

@AshharAhmadKhan Please rebase it one more time (some earlier PRs were merged)

[AshharAhmadKhan]

Hi @adamsaghy , changeset renumbered from 0230 to 0231. Happy to accommodate any further changes if needed!

[IOhacker]

@AshharAhmadKhan I notice two items after trying to run this on an existing tenant,

Change set author must be "fineract" and there is an issue with a Foreing keys, could you please raise a PR for fixing the issues reported?

fineract-server-1 | Caused by: liquibase.exception.MigrationFailedException: Migration failed for changeset db/changelog/tenant/parts/0231_remove_clientcharge_inactivate_permissions.xml::1::ashharahmadkhan:
fineract-server-1 | Reason: liquibase.exception.DatabaseException: ERROR: update o delete en «m_permission» viola la llave foránea «fk8dedb048103b544b» en la tabla «m_role_permission»
fineract-server-1 | Detail: La llave (id)=(672) todavía es referida desde la tabla «m_role_permission». [Failed SQL: (0) DELETE FROM public.m_permission WHERE code='INACTIVATE_CLIENTCHARGE']
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.changelog.ChangeSet.execute(ChangeSet.java:873)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.changelog.visitor.UpdateVisitor.executeAcceptedChange(UpdateVisitor.java:127)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.changelog.visitor.UpdateVisitor.visit(UpdateVisitor.java:71)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.changelog.ChangeLogIterator.lambda$run$0(ChangeLogIterator.java:133)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.Scope.lambda$child$0(Scope.java:216)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.Scope.child(Scope.java:225)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.Scope.child(Scope.java:215)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.Scope.child(Scope.java:194)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.changelog.ChangeLogIterator.lambda$run$1(ChangeLogIterator.java:122)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.Scope.lambda$child$0(Scope.java:216)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.Scope.child(Scope.java:225)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.Scope.child(Scope.java:215)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.Scope.child(Scope.java:194)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.Scope.child(Scope.java:282)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.Scope.child(Scope.java:286)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.changelog.ChangeLogIterator.run(ChangeLogIterator.java:91)
fineract-server-1 | ... 32 common frames omitted
fineract-server-1 | Caused by: liquibase.exception.DatabaseException: ERROR: update o delete en «m_permission» viola la llave foránea «fk8dedb048103b544b» en la tabla «m_role_permission»
fineract-server-1 | Detail: La llave (id)=(672) todavía es referida desde la tabla «m_role_permission». [Failed SQL: (0) DELETE FROM public.m_permission WHERE code='INACTIVATE_CLIENTCHARGE']

fineract-server-1 | Detail: La llave (id)=(678) todavía es referida desde la tabla «m_role_permission». [Failed SQL: (0) DELETE FROM public.m_permission WHERE code='INACTIVATE_CLIENTCHARGE_CHECKER']
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.executor.jvm.JdbcExecutor$ExecuteStatementCallback.doInStatement(JdbcExecutor.java:520)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.executor.jvm.JdbcExecutor.execute(JdbcExecutor.java:85)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.executor.jvm.JdbcExecutor.execute(JdbcExecutor.java:188)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.executor.AbstractExecutor.execute(AbstractExecutor.java:148)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.database.AbstractJdbcDatabase.executeStatements(AbstractJdbcDatabase.java:1198)
fineract-server-1 | at liquibase.changelog.ChangeSet.execute(ChangeSet.java:816)
fineract-server-1 | ... 47 common frames omitted
fineract-server-1 | Caused by: org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: ERROR: update o delete en «m_permission» viola la llave foránea «fk8dedb048103b544b» en la tabla «m_role_permission»
fineract-server-1 | Detail: La llave (id)=(678) todavía es referida desde la tabla «m_role_permission».

[AshharAhmadKhan]

Thanks for catching this, @IOhacker

I’ll put up a follow-up PR to address both issues shortly. Appreciate you validating this on an existing tenant and reporting it.