3 AL/BC patterns from CURABIS's internal automated-testing training material (#158)

* Add 3 more AL/BC patterns from CURABIS Academy testing course material

Third batch from CURABIS ApS: item-ledger-entry document-no lookup after Ship-and-Invoice posting, TestPage.Visible()/.Enabled() as the mechanism for verifying field UI state, and LibraryUtility.GenerateGUID() for collision-free test fixture values.

* Address Jesper Schulz-Wedde's review on PR #158

- use-generateguid-for-unique-test-fixture-values.md: GenerateGUID()
  is a Code[10] number-series value, not a real GUID; truncating it
  with CopyStr for a shorter field cuts off the changing digits. Point
  to GenerateRandomCode/GenerateRandomCodeWithLength/GenerateRandomXMLText
  instead, which verify uniqueness against the actual table.
- Split use-testpage-visible-enabled-to-verify-field-ui-state.md: drop
  its editability claim (the sample opens with OpenView() and asserts
  Enabled(), which verifies enabled state, not editability — Editable()
  and Enabled() are distinct TestField methods). New companion article
  use-testpage-editable-to-verify-field-editability.md covers Editable()
  with OpenEdit() specifically.
- Wire GenerateGUID/CopyStr and TestPage Visible/Enabled/Editable cues
  into al-testing-review.md, and the Item Ledger Entry/Last Shipping No.
  posting cue into al-data-modeling-review.md.

The Item Ledger Entry article itself was independently verified against
current BCApps source and needs no changes.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* Address second round of Jesper Schulz-Wedde's review on PR #158

- use-generateguid-for-unique-test-fixture-values.md/.good.al: documented
  each LibraryUtility helper's actual behavior, verified against
  LibraryUtility.Codeunit.al. GenerateRandomCode opens the target table as
  a temporary RecordRef, so despite taking TableNo it never checks real
  data. GenerateRandomXMLText performs no table lookup at all. Only
  GenerateRandomCodeWithLength/GenerateRandomCode20 (capped at Code[10]/
  Code[20]) genuinely verify against the real table. Fixture switched to
  GenerateRandomCodeWithLength where the comment claims verified
  uniqueness.
- al-testing-review.md: rewired the cue to catch the actual anti-pattern
  (hardcoded literals, hand-built uniqueness, short-field GUID truncation)
  instead of only matching the compliant GenerateGUID()+CopyStr shape;
  broadened tokens to include TestPage, Library - Utility, and
  .Visible()/.Enabled()/.Editable().
- al-data-modeling-review.md: restricted the Item Ledger Entry
  Last-Shipping-No. cue to sales combined posting; purchase combined
  posting is Receive+Invoice and uses different fields entirely.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* Fix remaining correctness issues from Jesper's 2026-09-15 re-review

- use-generateguid-for-unique-test-fixture-values.md: narrowed the
  collision rule to primary-key/unique-lookup fields - an ordinary
  descriptive field carries no uniqueness constraint, so a hardcoded
  or deterministic value there isn't the anti-pattern (the article and
  its al-testing-review.md worklist cue both said "primary-key or
  descriptive field"). Also corrected GenerateRandomCode: it opens its
  target table as a temporary RecordRef that starts and stays empty,
  so its repeat/until loop always exits after one iteration and never
  retries even within a single test run - the "non-colliding within a
  test run" claim was false. It's the rightmost N characters of
  GenerateGUID()'s sequential series, so a short field's value cycles
  (Code[1] repeats every 10 calls, Code[2] every 100). Verified against
  LibraryUtility.Codeunit.al in the BCApps reference clone.
- item-ledger-entry-document-no-follows-last-shipping-no: both
  fixtures called FindSet() without consuming its optional Boolean,
  which raises a runtime error on an empty result set - the opposite
  of the article's own claimed "silently matches zero rows, no error"
  behavior. Wrapped in `if ... then;` per the existing
  guard-database-reads.good.al idiom.
- al-data-modeling-review.md: widened both not-applicable scope
  clauses (intro and outcome) to include dimension wiring, posting-
  routine structure, and Item Ledger Entry document-number lookups -
  the leaf declared itself not-applicable outside setup/master/key/
  numbering/block/audit surfaces despite having a targeted cue for
  this PR's own new article.
- Converted this PR's 8 plain-backtick "See sample: `x.good.al`."
  references (across all 4 new articles) to the READ-convention
  markdown-link form required by Knowledge-Retrieval.ps1.

Rebased onto upstream/main (one conflict in al-data-modeling-review.md
intro wording, merged).

* Stop routing GenerateRandomCode20 as compliant for shorter fields

al-testing-review.md's cue presented GenerateRandomCodeWithLength and
GenerateRandomCode20 as interchangeable options for "a shorter field
needing real verified uniqueness." They aren't: verified against
LibraryUtility.Codeunit.al, GenerateRandomCode20 truncates
GenerateGUID()'s sequential value down to the target field's length by
keeping the leftmost (slowest-changing) characters via PadStr, so its
retry loop against a field shorter than 20 can churn through the same
truncated prefix for a long time. GenerateRandomCodeWithLength has no
such problem (it generates exactly the requested length of random
text). The knowledge article itself already scoped GenerateRandomCode20
to Code[20] correctly - only the skill cue needed narrowing to match.

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

microsoft/knowledge/data-modeling/item-ledger-entry-document-no-follows-last-shipping-no.bad.al

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+codeunit 50130 "Sample Item Ledger Lookup"
+{
+    procedure GetPostedItemLedgerEntries(var SalesHeader: Record "Sales Header"; var ItemLedgerEntry: Record "Item Ledger Entry")
+    var
+        LibrarySales: Codeunit "Library - Sales";
+        InvoiceNo: Code[20];
+    begin
+        InvoiceNo := LibrarySales.PostSalesDocument(SalesHeader, true, true);
+        ItemLedgerEntry.SetRange("Document No.", InvoiceNo);
+        if ItemLedgerEntry.FindSet() then;
+    end;
+}

microsoft/knowledge/data-modeling/item-ledger-entry-document-no-follows-last-shipping-no.good.al

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+codeunit 50130 "Sample Item Ledger Lookup"
+{
+    procedure GetPostedItemLedgerEntries(var SalesHeader: Record "Sales Header"; var ItemLedgerEntry: Record "Item Ledger Entry")
+    var
+        LibrarySales: Codeunit "Library - Sales";
+        ShippingNo: Code[20];
+    begin
+        LibrarySales.PostSalesDocument(SalesHeader, true, true);
+        ShippingNo := SalesHeader."Last Shipping No.";
+        ItemLedgerEntry.SetRange("Document No.", ShippingNo);
+        if ItemLedgerEntry.FindSet() then;
+    end;
+}

microsoft/knowledge/data-modeling/item-ledger-entry-document-no-follows-last-shipping-no.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+bc-version: [all]
+domain: data-modeling
+keywords: [item-ledger-entry, document-no, last-shipping-no, ship-and-invoice, posting, sales-order]
+technologies: [al]
+countries: [w1]
+application-area: [all]
+---
+
+# After Ship-and-Invoice posting, Item Ledger Entry carries the shipment document number
+
+## Description
+
+Posting a sales order with both Ship and Invoice in one call creates the Item Ledger Entry during the shipment leg of that combined post, so the entry's `Document No.` is stamped with the value assigned to the shipment — `Sales Header."Last Shipping No."` — not the posted sales invoice number the posting call returns. Code that filters Item Ledger Entry by the invoice number instead finds nothing: `SetRange`/`FindSet` simply return zero rows, with no error to signal the mistake.
+
+## Best Practice
+
+After posting a sales order with Ship and Invoice together, read `SalesHeader."Last Shipping No."` (populated during the post) and filter Item Ledger Entry by that value, not by the invoice number the posting routine returns.
+
+See sample: [`item-ledger-entry-document-no-follows-last-shipping-no.good.al`](item-ledger-entry-document-no-follows-last-shipping-no.good.al).
+
+## Anti Pattern
+
+Filtering Item Ledger Entry by the posted sales invoice number after a combined Ship-and-Invoice post. The filter compiles and runs without error but matches zero rows, because the entry belongs to the shipment leg of the posting, not the invoice leg.
+
+See sample: [`item-ledger-entry-document-no-follows-last-shipping-no.bad.al`](item-ledger-entry-document-no-follows-last-shipping-no.bad.al).

microsoft/knowledge/testing/use-generateguid-for-unique-test-fixture-values.bad.al

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+codeunit 50132 "Sample Customer Type Library"
+{
+    procedure CreateCustomerType(var CustomerType: Record "Customer Type")
+    begin
+        CustomerType.Init();
+        CustomerType.Code := 'TEST001';
+        CustomerType.Description := 'Test Customer Type';
+        CustomerType.Insert(true);
+    end;
+}

microsoft/knowledge/testing/use-generateguid-for-unique-test-fixture-values.good.al

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+codeunit 50132 "Sample Customer Type Library"
+{
+    var
+        LibraryUtility: Codeunit "Library - Utility";
+
+    procedure CreateCustomerType(var CustomerType: Record "Customer Type")
+    begin
+        CustomerType.Init();
+        // Code is shorter than GenerateGUID()'s 10 characters, and this field's
+        // uniqueness matters, so use GenerateRandomCodeWithLength: it opens the
+        // real (non-temporary) table and loops until the value doesn't collide.
+        // GenerateRandomCode would not do this — it opens the table as temporary,
+        // so its own emptiness check never inspects real rows.
+        CustomerType.Code :=
+            LibraryUtility.GenerateRandomCodeWithLength(CustomerType.FieldNo(Code), Database::"Customer Type", MaxStrLen(CustomerType.Code));
+        // Description is long enough to hold the full GenerateGUID() value
+        // untruncated, and only needs to be incidental, not verified-unique.
+        CustomerType.Description := CopyStr(LibraryUtility.GenerateGUID(), 1, MaxStrLen(CustomerType.Description));
+        CustomerType.Insert(true);
+    end;
+}

microsoft/knowledge/testing/use-generateguid-for-unique-test-fixture-values.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+---
+bc-version: [all]
+domain: testing
+keywords: [generateguid, library-utility, test-fixtures, uniqueness, generaterandomcode, maxstrlen]
+technologies: [al]
+countries: [w1]
+application-area: [all]
+---
+
+# Generate unique test fixture values with LibraryUtility helpers, not hardcoded literals
+
+## Description
+
+A fixture helper that assigns a hardcoded literal to a primary-key field, or to any field the test relies on as a unique lookup identifier, collides the moment two tests, or two runs of the same test, create that fixture without cleanup — and a literal longer than the field allows raises a truncation or insert error. An ordinary descriptive field carries no such constraint: two rows with the same description do not collide on insert, and a deterministic descriptive value is often exactly what an exact-match assertion needs, so none of this applies to it. `LibraryUtility.GenerateGUID()` is not a real GUID — it is a `Code[10]` number-series value (`GU00000000`–`GU99999999`) — and it returns the full 10 characters unshortened. Truncating it yourself with `CopyStr(..., 1, MaxStrLen(ShorterField))` for a field under 10 characters is unsafe: the changing digits sit at the right end and are exactly what gets cut off, so consecutive calls into a short field can produce the same truncated value. `GenerateGUID()` is only safe as-is for a field that holds the full 10 characters.
+
+## Best Practice
+
+For a field that holds the full 10 characters, assign `LibraryUtility.GenerateGUID()` directly. For a shorter field, do not truncate a GUID yourself — but also do not assume every `LibraryUtility` helper verifies uniqueness against the real table, because they don't all behave the same way:
+
+- `GenerateRandomCode(FieldNo, TableNo)` opens the target table as a **temporary** `RecordRef`: the buffer starts and stays empty, so its `repeat...until RecRef.IsEmpty()` loop always exits after one iteration — despite taking `TableNo`, it never checks the real table, and it never retries even within its own call. Its value is the rightmost `FieldRef.Length` characters of `GenerateGUID()`'s sequential `GU00000000`–`GU99999999` series, so for a short field that window of digits cycles: a 1-character field repeats every 10 calls, a 2-character field every 100, and so on. It is a finite short-field namespace with a low collision *chance* within one test run — not a guarantee at any scope, unlike the table-checking helpers below.
+- `GenerateRandomCodeWithLength(FieldNo, TableNo, CodeLength)` opens the real (non-temporary) table and loops until the generated value doesn't collide — a genuine verified-unique guarantee — but it returns `Code[10]` regardless of the requested `CodeLength`, so it's only useful for a field of 10 characters or fewer.
+- `GenerateRandomCode20(FieldNo, TableNo)` is the same real, verified-against-the-table pattern as `GenerateRandomCodeWithLength`, sized for a `Code[20]` field.
+- `GenerateRandomXMLText(Length)` performs no table lookup at all — it's a plain random-text generator, appropriate for a descriptive/incidental field where uniqueness doesn't matter, not for a value that needs to be collision-checked.
+
+Pick `GenerateRandomCodeWithLength`/`GenerateRandomCode20` when the test genuinely needs a code verified unique against the table; use `GenerateRandomCode`/`GenerateGUID`/`GenerateRandomXMLText` for incidental values where a low collision *chance* is enough.
+
+See sample: [`use-generateguid-for-unique-test-fixture-values.good.al`](use-generateguid-for-unique-test-fixture-values.good.al).
+
+## Anti Pattern
+
+Hardcoding a primary-key or unique-lookup fixture value such as `'TEST001'`, which collides across parallel or repeated test runs — a fixed descriptive value is not this anti-pattern, since the field carries no uniqueness constraint. Equally an anti-pattern: truncating `GenerateGUID()`'s result with `CopyStr(..., 1, MaxStrLen(Field))` for a field shorter than 10 characters — the truncation removes the part of the value that actually varies.
+
+See sample: [`use-generateguid-for-unique-test-fixture-values.bad.al`](use-generateguid-for-unique-test-fixture-values.bad.al).

microsoft/knowledge/testing/use-testpage-editable-to-verify-field-editability.bad.al

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+codeunit 50134 "Sample Customer Type Edit Test"
+{
+    Subtype = Test;
+
+    [Test]
+    procedure CustomerTypeFieldNotEditable_WhenLocked()
+    var
+        Assert: Codeunit Assert;
+        CustomerType: Record "Customer Type";
+        CustomerTypeCard: TestPage "Customer Type Card";
+    begin
+        // [GIVEN] a customer type record whose Locked flag is set
+        CustomerType.Init();
+        CustomerType.Locked := true;
+        CustomerType.Insert(true);
+
+        // [WHEN] the page is opened in VIEW mode — editability logic that only
+        // applies in edit mode is not exercised the same way
+        CustomerTypeCard.OpenView();
+        CustomerTypeCard.GoToRecord(CustomerType);
+
+        // [THEN] wrong function: Enabled() does not verify editability
+        Assert.IsFalse(CustomerTypeCard.Description.Enabled(), 'Description should not be editable while Locked is set.');
+
+        CustomerTypeCard.Close();
+    end;
+}

microsoft/knowledge/testing/use-testpage-editable-to-verify-field-editability.good.al

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+codeunit 50133 "Sample Customer Type Edit Test"
+{
+    Subtype = Test;
+
+    [Test]
+    procedure CustomerTypeFieldNotEditable_WhenLocked()
+    var
+        Assert: Codeunit Assert;
+        CustomerType: Record "Customer Type";
+        CustomerTypeCard: TestPage "Customer Type Card";
+    begin
+        // [GIVEN] a customer type record whose Locked flag is set
+        CustomerType.Init();
+        CustomerType.Locked := true;
+        CustomerType.Insert(true);
+
+        // [WHEN] the page is opened in edit mode on that record
+        CustomerTypeCard.OpenEdit();
+        CustomerTypeCard.GoToRecord(CustomerType);
+
+        // [THEN] the field's actual editable state reflects the lock
+        Assert.IsFalse(CustomerTypeCard.Description.Editable(), 'Description should not be editable while Locked is set.');
+
+        CustomerTypeCard.Close();
+    end;
+}

microsoft/knowledge/testing/use-testpage-editable-to-verify-field-editability.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+bc-version: [all]
+domain: testing
+keywords: [testpage, editable, openedit, ui-state, field-verification]
+technologies: [al]
+countries: [w1]
+application-area: [all]
+---
+
+# Verify field editability with TestPage.Editable(), opened in edit mode
+
+## Description
+
+Whether a field can actually be changed is a distinct state from whether it is shown or enabled — `Editable()` and `Enabled()` are separate `TestField` functions. Verifying editability also requires opening the `TestPage` with `OpenEdit()`, not `OpenView()`: `OpenView()` opens the page in view mode, so it does not exercise the field's own conditional editability logic the way an actual edit-mode session does.
+
+## Best Practice
+
+Open the `TestPage` with `OpenEdit()`, navigate to the relevant record, then assert against `TestPageField.Editable()` to verify whether the field can be changed under the given precondition.
+
+See sample: [`use-testpage-editable-to-verify-field-editability.good.al`](use-testpage-editable-to-verify-field-editability.good.al).
+
+## Anti Pattern
+
+Asserting `Enabled()` (or checking nothing at all) when the actual claim is about editability, or opening the page with `OpenView()` when the field's editability depends on business logic that only applies in edit mode.
+
+See sample: [`use-testpage-editable-to-verify-field-editability.bad.al`](use-testpage-editable-to-verify-field-editability.bad.al).

microsoft/knowledge/testing/use-testpage-visible-enabled-to-verify-field-ui-state.bad.al

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+codeunit 50131 "Sample Customer Type UI Test"
+{
+    Subtype = Test;
+
+    [Test]
+    procedure CustomerTypeFieldIsEnabledOnCustomerCard()
+    var
+        CustomerCard: TestPage "Customer Card";
+    begin
+        // Confirms only that the page opens - never checks the field's actual UI state
+        CustomerCard.OpenView();
+        CustomerCard.Close();
+    end;
+}

microsoft/knowledge/testing/use-testpage-visible-enabled-to-verify-field-ui-state.good.al

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+codeunit 50131 "Sample Customer Type UI Test"
+{
+    Subtype = Test;
+
+    [Test]
+    procedure CustomerTypeFieldIsEnabledOnCustomerCard()
+    var
+        Assert: Codeunit Assert;
+        CustomerCard: TestPage "Customer Card";
+    begin
+        CustomerCard.OpenView();
+        Assert.IsTrue(CustomerCard."Customer Type".Enabled(), 'Customer Type should be enabled on the Customer Card.');
+        Assert.IsTrue(CustomerCard."Customer Type".Visible(), 'Customer Type should be visible on the Customer Card.');
+    end;
+}

microsoft/knowledge/testing/use-testpage-visible-enabled-to-verify-field-ui-state.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+bc-version: [all]
+domain: testing
+keywords: [testpage, visible, enabled, ui-state, headless-test, field-verification]
+technologies: [al]
+countries: [w1]
+application-area: [all]
+---
+
+# Verify field visibility and enabled state with TestPage.Visible()/.Enabled()
+
+## Description
+
+A UI test codeunit does not need to inspect table or page properties indirectly to confirm a field is shown or enabled under given conditions. The `TestPage` object exposes a `Visible()` and an `Enabled()` function on each field, reflecting the page's actual rendered state, callable directly from a `[Test]` procedure. `Enabled()` and `Editable()` are distinct states — this article covers visibility/enabled state specifically; see `use-testpage-editable-to-verify-field-editability.md` for verifying whether a field can actually be changed.
+
+## Best Practice
+
+Open the `TestPage`, navigate to the relevant record if needed, then assert against `TestPageField.Visible()` and `TestPageField.Enabled()` to verify the field's shown/enabled state, rather than checking an unrelated table/page property or skipping the check.
+
+See sample: [`use-testpage-visible-enabled-to-verify-field-ui-state.good.al`](use-testpage-visible-enabled-to-verify-field-ui-state.good.al).
+
+## Anti Pattern
+
+A test that opens the `TestPage` but never asserts against `Visible()`/`Enabled()` on the field in question — confirming only that the page opens, not that the field behaves as expected.
+
+See sample: [`use-testpage-visible-enabled-to-verify-field-ui-state.bad.al`](use-testpage-visible-enabled-to-verify-field-ui-state.bad.al).

microsoft/skills/review/al-data-modeling-review.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ application-area: [all]
 
 Reviews AL source changes against the `data-modeling` knowledge domain in BCQuality and emits a findings report. This is a leaf action skill: it invokes no sub-skills. It is one of the skills composed by `al-code-review`.
 
-An orchestrator invokes this skill with a `pr-diff`, `file-path`, or `folder-path`. Data-modeling findings are narrow by design — they apply when the review scope contains setup or master tables, their card pages, primary keys, number-series assignment, block enforcement, or audit fields. The skill returns `not-applicable` when none of those apply.
+An orchestrator invokes this skill with a `pr-diff`, `file-path`, or `folder-path`. Data-modeling findings are narrow by design — they apply when the review scope contains setup or master tables, their card pages, primary keys, number-series assignment, block enforcement, audit fields, dimension wiring, journal-based posting-routine structure, or Item Ledger Entry document-number lookups after a combined sales post. The skill returns `not-applicable` when none of those apply.
 
 ## Source
 
@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ A file enters the candidate worklist when its `keywords` intersect the extracted
 The following targeted checks cover every current `data-modeling` article. Treat each as a candidate-selection cue: when the signal appears in changed code, add the named article to the worklist and evaluate it in Action.
 
 - A `* Setup` table or its page changes singleton structure, uses a nonblank or generated key, permits insert/delete, uses a List page, or does not ensure the blank-keyed row exists — `setup-table-is-a-singleton`.
+- Code reads `Item Ledger Entry."Document No."` (or `"Last Shipping No."`/`"Last Posting No."`) after a combined Ship+Invoice **sales** post — `item-ledger-entry-document-no-follows-last-shipping-no`. This is a sales-specific rule: purchase combined posting is Receive+Invoice and uses receiving fields such as `"Last Receiving No."`, not the shipment/document-number behavior this article describes. Do not worklist it from purchase posting code.
 - A custom master table changes its primary key, `No.`/`No. Series` fields, or `OnInsert` without assigning a blank `No.` from setup through a number series — `master-table-no-from-number-series-in-oninsert`.
 - BC v22 or later code introduces or retains `NoSeriesManagement`, `InitSeries`, `SelectSeries`, or `SetSeries`, or number assignment/manual-entry checks do not use codeunit `"No. Series"` methods such as `GetNextNo`, `IsManual`, or `TestManual` — `use-no-series-codeunit-not-noseriesmanagement`.
 - A master gains or changes `Blocked`, or a document line, journal line, reference-field `OnValidate`, or posting routine uses that master without `TestField(Blocked, false)` at the point of use; also cue when the check is placed only in the master's own triggers — `check-blocked-in-referencing-code-not-in-master`.
@@ -87,7 +88,7 @@ Outcome selection:
 
 - `completed` — the skill evaluated every worklist item.
 - `no-knowledge` — no applicable data-modeling knowledge survived filtering.
-- `not-applicable` — the diff touches no setup/master table, page, key, numbering, block-check, or audit-field surface.
+- `not-applicable` — the diff touches no setup/master table, page, key, numbering, block-check, audit-field, dimension-wiring, posting-routine-structure, or Item-Ledger-Entry-document-number surface.
 - `partial` — a budget was hit before the worklist was exhausted.
 - `failed` — an unrecoverable error occurred.
 

microsoft/skills/review/al-testing-review.md

@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ Narrow the relevant files to the subset that applies to the changes under review
 
 - The changed AL object names and types — especially codeunits with `Subtype = Test`, test runner codeunits with `TestIsolation`, test libraries, and codeunits that define UI handlers.
 - The changed methods and attributes, weighted toward `[Test]`, `[TransactionModel(...)]`, `[TestPermissions(...)]`, `[HandlerFunctions(...)]`, handler attributes, `asserterror`, `ExpectedError`, `ExpectedErrorCode`, fixture initialization, and test-library calls.
-- Tokens extracted from the diff that relate to testing (`Subtype = Test`, `Subtype = TestRunner`, `TestIsolation`, `TestPermissions`, `Restrictive`, `NonRestrictive`, `Disabled`, `Permissions Mock`, `Library - Lower Permissions`, `TransactionModel`, `AutoRollback`, `AutoCommit`, `Commit`, `asserterror`, `ExpectedError`, `ExpectedErrorCode`, `HandlerFunctions`, `ConfirmHandler`, `MessageHandler`, `StrMenuHandler`, `ModalPageHandler`, `SendNotificationHandler`, `RecallNotificationHandler`, `Enqueue`, `Dequeue`, `AssertEmpty`, `Library Assert`, `LibraryVariableStorage`, `LibrarySales`, `LibraryPurchase`, `LibraryERM`, `LibraryInventory`, `LibraryRandom`, `Init`, `Insert`).
+- Tokens extracted from the diff that relate to testing (`Subtype = Test`, `Subtype = TestRunner`, `TestIsolation`, `TestPermissions`, `Restrictive`, `NonRestrictive`, `Disabled`, `Permissions Mock`, `Library - Lower Permissions`, `TransactionModel`, `AutoRollback`, `AutoCommit`, `Commit`, `asserterror`, `ExpectedError`, `ExpectedErrorCode`, `HandlerFunctions`, `ConfirmHandler`, `MessageHandler`, `StrMenuHandler`, `ModalPageHandler`, `SendNotificationHandler`, `RecallNotificationHandler`, `Enqueue`, `Dequeue`, `AssertEmpty`, `Library Assert`, `LibraryVariableStorage`, `LibrarySales`, `LibraryPurchase`, `LibraryERM`, `LibraryInventory`, `LibraryRandom`, `Library - Utility`, `LibraryUtility`, `GenerateGUID`, `GenerateRandomCode`, `TestPage`, `.Visible(`, `.Enabled(`, `.Editable(`, `OpenNew`, `OpenView`, `OpenEdit`, `Init`, `Insert`).
 
 A file enters the candidate worklist when its `keywords` intersect the extracted tokens or its topic (derived from the index entry's `path`, `title`, and `description`) matches a changed object type. Read an article's full file — its `## Best Practice` / `## Anti Pattern` bodies — only after it makes the worklist; candidate selection uses the index alone. When the diff contains no testing-related changes by any of the above signals, return `outcome: "not-applicable"` without evaluating files.
 
@@ -50,6 +50,8 @@ The following targeted checks cover every current `testing` article. Treat each
 - A permission-sensitive test uses `TestPermissions = Disabled`, claims to test a restricted user without `"Permissions Mock"`/`"Library - Lower Permissions"`, or declares `[TestPermissions(...)]` without applying that context — `permission-tests-must-lower-the-execution-context`.
 - Test fixture code manually calls `Init`/`Insert`, invents keys or prerequisite records, or bypasses available `LibrarySales`, `LibraryPurchase`, `LibraryERM`, `LibraryInventory`, `LibraryRandom`, or equivalent library codeunits — `use-library-codeunits-for-test-fixtures`.
 - `asserterror` is added or changed without a following `Assert.ExpectedError`, `Assert.ExpectedErrorCode`, or a purpose-built assertion such as `ExpectedTestFieldError` — `asserterror-needs-expectederror-and-code`.
+- Test fixture code assigns a hardcoded literal to a primary-key field or a field the test relies on as a unique lookup identifier, hand-builds a "unique" value for such a field (string concatenation, a counter, `Format(CurrentDateTime)`), or truncates `LibraryUtility.GenerateGUID()`'s result with `CopyStr` for such a field shorter than 10 characters — `use-generateguid-for-unique-test-fixture-values`. Calling `GenerateGUID()` untruncated into a full-length field, `GenerateRandomCodeWithLength` for a shorter field needing real verified uniqueness, or `GenerateRandomCode20` specifically for a `Code[20]` field, is the compliant shape, not the signal to flag. `GenerateRandomCode20` is not a substitute for `GenerateRandomCodeWithLength` on a shorter field — it truncates `GenerateGUID()`'s sequential value down to the field's length by keeping the *leftmost* characters, which change the slowest, so retries against a short field can churn through the same truncated prefix far longer than `GenerateRandomCodeWithLength`'s equivalent. A hardcoded or deterministic value in an ordinary descriptive field is not this anti-pattern — that field carries no uniqueness constraint. Do not claim `GenerateRandomCode` (without `WithLength`/`20`) or `GenerateRandomXMLText` verify uniqueness against the real table, or that `GenerateRandomCode` is collision-free even within one test run for a short field — none of that is true.
+- A test asserts against a `TestPage` field's `.Visible()` or `.Enabled()` — `use-testpage-visible-enabled-to-verify-field-ui-state`. When the assertion is against `.Editable()`, or the page is opened with `OpenEdit()` specifically to check editability — `use-testpage-editable-to-verify-field-editability`.
 - A test path raises UI and `[HandlerFunctions(...)]` does not match the invoked handlers, or the test has no meaningful evidence of the UI result (for example, it treats a Boolean set before the action as proof of success) — `ui-handlers-in-tests`. A capture/reset/assert-after-`RunModal` pattern is valid. Enqueue/dequeue and `AssertEmpty` are required only when order, count, text, replies, or a scripted sequence is part of the contract. Only nonoptional handlers have to execute: a listed handler declared `[SendNotificationHandler(true)]` or `[RecallNotificationHandler(true)]` is optional by design, so do not treat it as unmatched when the run never raises the notification.
 - A test's `[GIVEN]`/setup looks up a hardcoded code/number/name assumed to already exist instead of creating it, leaves a mandatory field on a created record empty, uses a value that doesn't satisfy the scenario's own explicit length/format requirement (for example a truncation test whose value never exceeds the field), or a scenario-defining value (amount, quantity, percentage, date, threshold, rounding precision) is generated/randomized instead of an explicit chosen value — `test-data-must-be-random-and-complete`. Generating incidental fixture values (identifiers, names, descriptions) via the standard library codeunits is the compliant shape, not the signal to flag, and neither is a short-but-valid value in an otherwise-unremarkable field.