FINERACT-2455: verify delinquency pause works as expected

[budaidev]

Description

Describe the changes made and why they were made. (Ignore if these details are present on the associated Apache Fineract JIRA ticket.)

Checklist

Please make sure these boxes are checked before submitting your pull request - thanks!

• Write the commit message as per our guidelines
• Acknowledge that we will not review PRs that are not passing the build ("green") - it is your responsibility to get a proposed PR to pass the build, not primarily the project's maintainers.
• Create/update unit or integration tests for verifying the changes made.
• Follow our coding conventions.
• Add required Swagger annotation and update API documentation at fineract-provider/src/main/resources/static/legacy-docs/apiLive.htm with details of any API changes
• This PR must not be a "code dump". Large changes can be made in a branch, with assistance. Ask for help on the developer mailing list.
• If merging this PR resolves a JIRA issue, I will mark that issue as resolved and set "Fix Version/s" appropriately.

Your assigned reviewer(s) will follow our guidelines for code reviews.

[galovics]

Confirmed genuinely test-only - two files, both under test sources, no production code touched. Cross-checked the new expectations against the actual validator/overlap logic (WorkingCapitalLoanPausePeriodUtils.inclusivePausePeriodsOverlap, WorkingCapitalLoanDelinquencyActionParseAndValidator.validateNoOverlap) and they're correct - inclusive-boundary cases, resume-effective-end handling, all line up with what the code actually does.

A few things worth tightening before this leaves draft:

• One of the new close steps in the feature file uses a hardcoded date (25 February 2026) instead of the current business date at that point in the scenario (15 March 2026) - it passes today only because the overpay-vs-accrual gap happens to be zero, but it's a latent flake if WC accrual/backdating rules tighten.
• UC6.4 adds a backdated pause on top of an existing one but only re-asserts the delinquency action rows, not the resulting schedule shift - which is the actual pause-date math this PR is meant to verify. UC6.3 has the same gap.
• A chunk of the added lines just append a "close the loan" step to unrelated pause scenarios with no pause-specific assertion afterward - if pause-vs-closure interaction is the goal, a couple of dedicated scenarios would be clearer than a blanket append.
• One test provisions two loans in a single method (testPauseAfterResumeRespectsEffectiveEndBoundary) - if the first assertion fails we don't learn anything about the second. Worth splitting into two tests.

None of this is blocking - the PR is what it says it is (test coverage, no behavior change) and the new assertions are correct.

Recommendation: APPROVE