mirror of
https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality.git
synced 2026-08-08 02:16:52 +01:00
Sync knowledge articles with review agent instructions
Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
f562fba837
commit
5bcdc55df9
62 changed files with 768 additions and 58 deletions
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
bc-version: [all]
|
||||
domain: privacy
|
||||
keywords: [migration, dataclassification, hybrid, destination, pii]
|
||||
technologies: [al]
|
||||
countries: [w1]
|
||||
application-area: [all]
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Classify migrated data at the destination field
|
||||
|
||||
## Description
|
||||
|
||||
Hybrid migration codeunits such as HybridSL, HybridGP, and HybridBC legitimately process sensitive source data: tax IDs, employee identifiers, financial balances, and customer records. The privacy concern is not that the migration code touches the data. The concern is where the data lands: the destination table field must have a DataClassification value that matches the migrated content.
|
||||
|
||||
## Best Practice
|
||||
|
||||
When reviewing migration code, follow the assignment to the destination field and verify that the destination table declares an appropriate field-level or inherited DataClassification. Treat the migration procedure itself as expected business functionality; flag only missing or understated classification on the persistent destination.
|
||||
|
||||
See sample: `classify-data-at-migration-destination.good.al`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Anti Pattern
|
||||
|
||||
Flagging a migration procedure merely because it copies tax IDs or names from a source system. That creates false positives and misses the real issue: a destination field with no classification, `ToBeClassified`, or `SystemMetadata` for customer or employee data.
|
||||
|
||||
See sample: `classify-data-at-migration-destination.bad.al`.
|
||||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue