Refine self-improvement review guidance

Narrow IsHandled, label-scope, UI-handler, checkpoint, and bulk-operation guidance to evidence-backed false-positive boundaries.

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

microsoft/knowledge/testing/ui-handlers-in-tests.md

@@ -1,28 +1,28 @@
 ---
 bc-version: [all]
 domain: testing
-keywords: [handler, handlerfunctions, confirm, message, strmenu, variable-storage, enqueue, unhandled-ui]
+keywords: [handler, handlerfunctions, confirm, message, strmenu, variable-storage, enqueue, capture, runmodal, unhandled-ui]
 technologies: [al]
 countries: [w1]
 application-area: [all]
 ---
 
-# Wire and verify UI handlers with enqueue-driven expectations
+# Wire UI handlers and verify meaningful outcomes
 
 ## Description
 
-A test runs headless: there is no interactive user to answer a dialog. Every UI call the executed path raises — `Confirm`, `Message`, error dialogs, `Page.Run`/`RunModal`, `Report.Run`/`RunModal`, request pages, `StrMenu`, `Notification.Send` — must be intercepted by a handler carrying the matching attribute (`[ConfirmHandler]`, `[MessageHandler]`, `[StrMenuHandler]`, `[ModalPageHandler]`, …) and named in the method's `[HandlerFunctions(...)]`. The list is a two-sided contract: raise a UI call with no listed handler and the platform aborts with an *unhandled UI* error; list a handler the path never hits and it fails with *"handler function was not executed"*. Both are runtime failures — the test never reaches its verdict, so a reviewer sees an infrastructure error instead of a result on the behavior under test.
+A test runs headless, so every UI call on the executed path must be intercepted by a matching handler named in `[HandlerFunctions(...)]`. The list is a two-sided contract: an unhandled UI call aborts the test, while Microsoft documents that [every listed handler must execute at least once](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics365/business-central/dev-itpro/developer/attributes/devenv-handlerfunctions-attribute#remarks) or the test fails.
 
-Getting the handler *present* is only half the job; the handler must also verify the *right* dialog fired the *right* number of times. Do that by driving handlers from the test, not by hardcoding answers inside them.
+Beyond that wiring guarantee, the test must verify the behavior it cares about. The appropriate pattern depends on the contract: a handler can capture concrete page state or a result and the test can assert that semantic postcondition after `RunModal`; assertions inside a handler are also supported. Queue/enqueue/dequeue and `LibraryVariableStorage.AssertEmpty` are useful when interaction order, count, text, replies, or a scripted sequence is itself part of the contract, but they are not mandatory for every handler.
 
 ## Best Practice
 
-Make the test own the expectations and the handlers consume them. Before acting, the test `Enqueue`s — in interaction order — the expected text (a stable substring) and any reply each handler must return. The handler `Dequeue`s the expected text, verifies it with the purpose-built asserts (`Assert.ExpectedMessage`, `Assert.ExpectedConfirm`, `Assert.ExpectedStrMenu` — which match on a fragment, not the full localized caption), then `Dequeue`s and returns its reply. Finish the test body with `LibraryVariableStorage.AssertEmpty` to prove every enqueued interaction fired exactly once, and start each test with an `Initialize` that calls `LibraryVariableStorage.Clear` so a value leaked by an earlier test cannot cascade. List in `[HandlerFunctions]` precisely the handlers the scenario triggers — no superset "just in case", no subset that happens to work today.
+List precisely the handlers the scenario triggers and make each handler contribute meaningful evidence. For a single modal page, reset a capture variable before the action, capture a concrete value from the page in the handler, and assert the expected value after `RunModal`. For ordered or repeated interactions, let the test enqueue expectations, let handlers dequeue and verify them, clear storage during initialization, and finish with `AssertEmpty`.
 
 See sample: `ui-handlers-in-tests.good.al`.
 
 ## Anti Pattern
 
-Omitting a handler for a UI call the path raises (unhandled-UI abort), padding the list with a handler the path never reaches ("handler function was not executed"), or writing handlers that hardcode their answer and assert inline with no enqueue/dequeue. The last is the subtle one: nothing proves the correct dialog fired the expected number of times, and an inline assertion that fails inside a handler can be swallowed by the calling UI operation, leaving the suite green while the behavior is broken. Skipping `Initialize`/`AssertEmpty` hides both a leaked queue and a missing or extra dialog.
+Omitting a handler for a UI call, listing a handler the path never reaches, or claiming action success from a Boolean set before the action runs. A handler that only closes a page can also leave the test without a semantic assertion. Do not flag the absence of queue storage by itself; require it only when the test needs to prove interaction order, count, text, replies, or a scripted sequence.
 
 See sample: `ui-handlers-in-tests.bad.al`.