test(terminal): validate if boxed flags will be passed as nullable

[galesky-a]

Description

Tested scenarios

Fixed issue:

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @galesky-a, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request introduces a new test case to ensure that optional boolean flags within the TerminalCloudAPI integration are correctly handled during JSON serialization. Specifically, it validates that if a boxed boolean flag, like DebitPreferredFlag, is not explicitly set, it is entirely omitted from the outgoing JSON request, preventing the terminal from misinterpreting a false value when null was intended. This improves the robustness of the API client's interaction with the terminal.

Highlights

• New Test for Nullable Boxed Flags: A new test case was added to TerminalCloudAPITest to specifically verify that the DebitPreferredFlag is correctly omitted from the JSON request when its setter is not explicitly called. This ensures that the flag defaults to null and is not serialized as false, which could lead to unintended behavior on the terminal side.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Changelog

• src/test/java/com/adyen/TerminalCloudAPITest.java
  • Imported PaymentTransaction and TransactionConditions classes.
  • Added a new test method debitPreferredFlagOmittedFromJsonWhenNotSet to verify that DebitPreferredFlag is not included in the JSON request when its setter is not invoked.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request adds a valuable test case to ensure that boxed boolean flags that are not set are omitted from the serialized JSON payload. This is crucial for correct terminal behavior. I've provided a couple of suggestions to enhance the new test's readability and correctness.

[gemini-code-assist]

Instead of creating a new PaymentTransaction and replacing the existing one, it's better to retrieve the existing PaymentTransaction from the terminalAPIRequest and set the transactionConditions on it. This avoids accidentally discarding other important fields of PaymentTransaction (like AmountsReq) that are likely initialized in createTerminalAPIPaymentRequest(). This makes the test more robust and focused on the specific change being tested.

    terminalAPIRequest
        .getSaleToPOIRequest()
        .getPaymentRequest()
        .getPaymentTransaction()
        .setTransactionConditions(transactionConditions);

[gemini-code-assist]

The Javadoc comment has some minor formatting issues. There's an unnecessary blank line at the beginning, and the <p> tag is not needed for a single-paragraph comment. For better readability and adherence to standard Java conventions, you can simplify the comment block.

  /**
   * When {@code setDebitPreferredFlag} is never called, the backing field stays {@code null} and
   * Gson must omit it from the serialized JSON entirely. This allows the terminal to choose the
   * payment type freely (DEBIT, CREDIT, or VOUCHER) rather than being forced to CREDIT by a
   * spurious {@code "DebitPreferredFlag": false}.
   */