Microsoft/bcquality
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality.git synced 2026-08-06 09:26:52 +01:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Complete AL review knowledge readiness (#108)
Some checks failed
Validate knowledge index / validate-index (push) Has been cancelled
Details
Validate AL review fixtures / validate-review-fixtures (push) Has been cancelled
Details
Validate frontmatter and structure / validate (push) Has been cancelled
Details

Browse source 
* Complete AL review knowledge readiness

Fill telemetry and Query coverage, strengthen thin review domains, correct audited content defects, and add deterministic cheap-model evaluation and reference-integrity safeguards.

Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot-Session: 9825b012-e653-496a-9310-c1f4b6f8ac27

* Generalize review fixture discovery

Derive smoke cases from the leaf, domain, and paired-sample conventions so new leaves require no scoring-contract changes. Keep only exceptional selection/context overrides and fail when retrieval metadata cannot rank the selected article.

Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot-Session: 9825b012-e653-496a-9310-c1f4b6f8ac27

* Preserve published field IDs in sample

Keep the existing Email and Contact Email field IDs unchanged, clarify that the sample represents an independent baseline, and use a local breaking-change rule for the generic smoke evaluation.

Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot-Session: 9825b012-e653-496a-9310-c1f4b6f8ac27

* Clarify published field identity rules

State explicitly that a published field keeps its ID, name, and type while a replacement is added as a separate field under an unused ID.

Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot-Session: 9825b012-e653-496a-9310-c1f4b6f8ac27

* Align field obsoletion sample baselines

Use Email field ID 3 as the shared baseline so the bad example demonstrates a same-ID rename while the good example retains the original field and adds a separate replacement.

Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot-Session: 9825b012-e653-496a-9310-c1f4b6f8ac27

---------

Co-authored-by: Jesper Schulz-Wedde <jesper.schulzwedde@microsoft.com>
This commit is contained in:
Jesper Schulz-Wedde 2026-07-15 10:55:25 +02:00 • committed by GitHub
parent ae04938c03
commit 186d8a1314
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: B5690EEEBB952194
105 changed files with 2229 additions and 212 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
microsoft/knowledge/error-handling/fielderror-vs-testfield.md
View file

@ -14,5 +14,9 @@ application-area: [all]
## Best Practice
Use `TestField` when the condition is a simple presence-or-equality check on a single field — mandatory-field gates and prerequisite checks at the top of a procedure read clearly and self-document intent. Use `FieldError` inside an `OnValidate` trigger or a validation procedure where surrounding business logic has already determined the value is invalid and you want a specific, custom message. Rely on the built-in field-and-record context both methods add rather than re-stating the field name in the text.
See sample: `fielderror-vs-testfield.good.al`.
## Anti Pattern
Calling `FieldError` to "test" a field — placing it on a path that is reached unconditionally and expecting it to validate — terminates execution every time because `FieldError` never evaluates a condition. The inverse smell is reaching for `TestField` when the rule needs a tailored message, then bolting a vague generic string onto a check that cannot express the real business reason. A reviewer can spot the first by a `FieldError` that is not guarded by a preceding `if`, and the second by a `TestField` whose intent comment describes a condition more complex than presence or equality.
See sample: `fielderror-vs-testfield.bad.al`.