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).

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

@@ -7,6 +7,6 @@ codeunit 50130 "Sample Item Ledger Lookup"
     begin
         InvoiceNo := LibrarySales.PostSalesDocument(SalesHeader, true, true);
         ItemLedgerEntry.SetRange("Document No.", InvoiceNo);
-        ItemLedgerEntry.FindSet();
+        if ItemLedgerEntry.FindSet() then;
     end;
 }

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

@@ -8,6 +8,6 @@ codeunit 50130 "Sample Item Ledger Lookup"
         LibrarySales.PostSalesDocument(SalesHeader, true, true);
         ShippingNo := SalesHeader."Last Shipping No.";
         ItemLedgerEntry.SetRange("Document No.", ShippingNo);
-        ItemLedgerEntry.FindSet();
+        if ItemLedgerEntry.FindSet() then;
     end;
 }

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

@@ -17,10 +17,10 @@ Posting a sales order with both Ship and Invoice in one call creates the Item Le
 
 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`.
+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`.
+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.md

@@ -11,23 +11,23 @@ application-area: [all]
 
 ## Description
 
-A fixture helper that assigns a hardcoded literal to a primary-key or descriptive field 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. `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.
+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`, so its own emptiness check never inspects real rows — despite taking `TableNo`, it does not verify against the actual table. It's safe to use for its non-colliding-*within-a-single-test-run* value (derived from `GenerateGUID()`'s own number series), not for a guarantee against pre-existing or leftover data.
+- `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`.
+See sample: [`use-generateguid-for-unique-test-fixture-values.good.al`](use-generateguid-for-unique-test-fixture-values.good.al).
 
 ## Anti Pattern
 
-Hardcoding a fixture value such as `'TEST001'` or a short descriptive literal, which collides across parallel or repeated test runs. 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.
+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`.
+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.md

@@ -17,10 +17,10 @@ Whether a field can actually be changed is a distinct state from whether it is s
 
 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`.
+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`.
+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.md

@@ -17,10 +17,10 @@ A UI test codeunit does not need to inspect table or page properties indirectly
 
 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`.
+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`.
+See sample: [`use-testpage-visible-enabled-to-verify-field-ui-state.bad.al`](use-testpage-visible-enabled-to-verify-field-ui-state.bad.al).