[backend] TaxController.updateRule() doesn't re-validate dependent fields when rule.type changes

[Wilfred007]

Description

updateRule() allows changing a tax rule's type (e.g. from flat to percentage) without re-validating that the existing value field still makes sense for the new type. A percentage rule with a value of 50000 (clearly meant as a flat amount) could silently persist after a type change.

Where

backend/src/controllers — TaxController.updateRule

Acceptance Criteria

• Re-validate value against the new type's constraints whenever type changes in an update
• Add a test covering a type change that would leave an invalid value

[leocagli]

Hi, I'd like to work on this issue. I can add re-validation of dependent fields in TaxController.updateRule() so stale cross-field state is caught on partial updates. Could you assign me?

[deborahamoni0-prog]

@deborahamoni0-prog has applied to work on this issue as part of the Stellar Wave Program's 6th wave.

hi maintainer please i would love to work on this issue

ℹ️ Repo Maintainers: To accept this application, review their application or assign @deborahamoni0-prog to this issue.

[leocagli]

I'd like to implement the missing re-validation in TaxController.updateRule(). The fix is to run the same validation logic as the create path before persisting the updated rule. Can you assign this to me?

[leocagli]

Hi! I'd like to fix this. TaxController.updateRule() should re-validate all dependent rules after an update — specifically re-running the cascade check to ensure no child rule now violates its parent's constraints. I'd add a validateRuleDependencies(ruleId) helper called before persisting the update, returning 422 if any dependency becomes invalid. Can I be assigned?

[Psalmuel01]

@Psalmuel01 has applied to work on this issue as part of the Stellar Wave Program's 6th wave.

Hi. I’d like to take this issue. I’ll review TaxController.updateRule() and ensure that when rule.type changes, the value field is re-validated against the constraints of the new type before persisting. I’ll make sure invalid state transitions are rejected instead of silently saved, and I’ll add a test covering a type change that would otherwise leave an inconsistent rule configuration.

ℹ️ Repo Maintainers: To accept this application, review their application or assign @Psalmuel01 to this issue.

[drips-wave]

Congratulations, @Psalmuel01! 🎉 Your application was accepted by the repo's maintainers, and the issue is due on June 30, 2026.

🧑‍💻 @Psalmuel01: Please resolve the issue such that the repo's maintainers have enough time to review your contribution before the due date. You'll earn Points for completing the issue on-time, which will make you eligible for a share of the Stellar Wave Program's reward pool.

Warning

When opening a PR, please link it to this issue to ensure it gets tracked accurately. Points are awarded when this issue is marked as completed by the maintainer.

🤠 Repo maintainers: Please keep an eye on the contributor's progress and review their work before the due date. You can manage this issue, including adjusting its complexity and points, here.

🌊 Happy Wave 🌊

[drips-wave]

This issue has been completed by @Psalmuel01 as part of the Stellar Wave Program's 6th Wave 🥳

😎 @Psalmuel01: You earned 200 Points for completing this issue! After the current Wave ends, you'll be eligible for a percentage of the Wave's reward pool based on the percentage of total points you've earned. Learn more here. You can also Leave a review to share your experience working on this issue.

🧑‍💻 Repo maintainers: How'd the contributor do? Leave a review to share your experience working with them.