4.7 HostedPage ContractTerm$ActionAtTermEndEnum`, problem: Unexpected value 'RENEW'"

[StefanLobbenmeierObjego]

Description of the Bug

{
"instance": "/pages/Hld8lZyz6bczIejaOnPnyi1WdcdjygdoG",
"status": 500,
"timestamp": "21-05-2026 15:45:31.257",
"title": "JSON decoding error: Cannot construct instance of com.chargebee.checkout.client.ms.model.ContractTerm$ActionAtTermEndEnum, problem: Unexpected value 'RENEW'"
}

Steps to reproduce

1. Create hosted page configured with ActionAtAtTermEnd set to RENEW

2. Attempt to open the hosted page on the client

3. Client gets an error from Chargebee api
   {
   "instance": "/pages/Hld8lZyz6bczIejaOnPnyi1WdcdjygdoG",
   "status": 500,
   "timestamp": "21-05-2026 15:45:31.257",
   "title": "JSON decoding error: Cannot construct instance of com.chargebee.checkout.client.ms.model.ContractTerm$ActionAtTermEndEnum, problem: Unexpected value 'RENEW'"
   }

Expected Behavior

no error
I suspect the java client needs to pass "renew" not "RENEW", but I cannot say for sure without checking your backend

Code Snippets (if applicable)

contractTerm(
                          HostedPageCheckoutExistingForItemsParams.ContractTermParams.builder()
                          .actionAtTermEnd(HostedPageCheckoutExistingForItemsParams.ContractTermParams.ActionAtTermEnd.RENEW)
                              .build()
                      )

Operating System

Docker / temurin-ubuntu-24-04

Language version

Java 25

Library version

4.7.0

Additional context

I just upgraded from v3 to v4, before I did not see this issue so I suspect its a client issue or something I did wrong during the migration, but if its a server issue later in the process it should be caught early right

[StefanLobbenmeierObjego]

FYI logs from v4 of creating the hosted page:

2026-05-22 10:32:21.786 Request Details: 
2026-05-22 10:32:21.786 Method: POST 
2026-05-22 10:32:21.786 URL: https://objego-test.chargebee.com/api/v2/hosted_pages/checkout_existing_for_items 
2026-05-22 10:32:21.786  
2026-05-22 10:32:21.786 Request Body: 
2026-05-22 10:32:21.786 contract_term[action_at_term_end]=RENEW&subscription_items[item_price_id][2]=property-management-addon-EUR-Monthly&subscription[id]=199GuWV9bjwRC3Rb&subscription_items[item_price_id][0]=free-EUR-Monthly&subscription_items[item_price_id][1]=ocb_addon-EUR-Monthly&subscription[contract_term_billing_cycle_on_renewal]=12&subscription_items[quantity][2]=1&subscription_items[quantity][1]=7&billing_cycles=12&replace_items_list=false&force_term_reset=true&subscription_items[unit_price][1]=95&subscription_items[unit_price][2]=795 
2026-05-22 10:32:22.249  
2026-05-22 10:32:22.249 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
2026-05-22 10:32:22.249 [OK] HTTP RESPONSE [08:32:22.249] (464ms) 

I will try to get another log from v3

[StefanLobbenmeierObjego]

Logs from v3:

2026-05-22 11:27:58.081 INFO 2026-05-22T09:27:58.080Z INFO 1 --- [nio-8095-exec-3] d.o.s.s.chargebee.ChargebeeClient : /hosted_pages/checkout_existing_for_items

2026-05-22 11:27:58.081 INFO 2026-05-22T09:27:58.081Z INFO 1 --- [nio-8095-exec-3] d.o.s.s.chargebee.ChargebeeClient : contract_term%5Baction_at_term_end%5D=renew&subscription_items%5Bitem_price_id%5D%5B2%5D=property-management-addon-EUR-Monthly&subscription%5Bid%5D=199GuWV9bjwRC3Rb&subscription_items%5Bitem_price_id%5D%5B0%5D=free-EUR-Monthly&subscription_items%5Bitem_price_id%5D%5B1%5D=ocb_addon-EUR-Monthly&subscription%5Bcontract_term_billing_cycle_on_renewal%5D=12&subscription_items%5Bquantity%5D%5B2%5D=1&subscription_items%5Bquantity%5D%5B1%5D=7&billing_cycles=12&replace_items_list=false&force_term_reset=true&subscription_items%5Bunit_price%5D%5B1%5D=95&subscription_items%5Bunit_price%5D%5B2%5D=795

decoded is this:
contract_term[action_at_term_end]=renew&subscription_items[item_price_id][2]=property-management-addon-EUR-Monthly&subscription[id]=199GuWV9bjwRC3Rb&subscription_items[item_price_id][0]=free-EUR-Monthly&subscription_items[item_price_id][1]=ocb_addon-EUR-Monthly&subscription[contract_term_billing_cycle_on_renewal]=12&subscription_items[quantity][2]=1&subscription_items[quantity][1]=7&billing_cycles=12&replace_items_list=false&force_term_reset=true&subscription_items[unit_price][1]=95&subscription_items[unit_price][2]=795

Only difference is the casing of RENEW so I strongly suspect this is the issue:

[cb-alish]

Hi @StefanLobbenmeierObjego, thanks for raising this and for the detailed review!

You're right — the only difference we can spot is the casing of the ENUMs. I was under the impression that enum casing was case-insensitive on the Chargebee backend, but let me do a quick check and get back to you shortly.

[cb-alish]

Hi @StefanLobbenmeierObjego,

Just to clarify — even though RENEW isn't working on the UI side, the API returns a 200 response without any errors. If only renew (lowercase) were the accepted value, the API should ideally validate and reject the request with a clear error response rather than silently succeeding.

This points to a backend inconsistency, and I've raised the concern with the respective team. I'll follow up once I have an update.

[StefanLobbenmeierObjego]

okay sounds good. in the meantime so I do not have to revert to v3 I have applied this patch to make Chargebee-java use the values instead of the enum names:

@Aspect
public class FormRequestBodyAspect {

    @Around("execution(String com.chargebee.v4.transport.FormRequestBody.valueToString(Object))")
    public String aroundValueToString(ProceedingJoinPoint joinPoint) throws Throwable {
        Object value = joinPoint.getArgs()[0];
        if (value instanceof Enum<?>) {
            String wireValue = enumWireValue((Enum<?>) value);
            if (wireValue != null) {
                return wireValue;
            }
        }
        return (String) joinPoint.proceed();
    }

    private static String enumWireValue(Enum<?> value) {
        try {
            Method getValue = value.getClass().getMethod("getValue");
            if (getValue.getReturnType() != String.class) {
                return null;
            }
            return (String) getValue.invoke(value);
        } catch (ReflectiveOperationException e) {
            return null;
        }
    }
}

but having the backend correctly handle uppercase enums or the client have this fix in the next version is the better solution of course 😄

[cb-alish]

Hi @StefanLobbenmeierObjego, we've reported this to the relevant team and they have acknowledged the bug and committed to working on a fix. I'm more inclined toward addressing this on the backend rather than the client side (though both approaches are valid). I'll discuss this internally with my team and will roll out a fix once we've determined the most appropriate approach.