From edf2d653c8dfc28e45c3e054076de268a0b45235 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jesper Schulz-Wedde Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 09:34:57 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] 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 --- .../obsolete-table-fields-instead-of-deleting-them.bad.al | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/microsoft/knowledge/breaking-changes/obsolete-table-fields-instead-of-deleting-them.bad.al b/microsoft/knowledge/breaking-changes/obsolete-table-fields-instead-of-deleting-them.bad.al index 1277fc2..d5f51cf 100644 --- a/microsoft/knowledge/breaking-changes/obsolete-table-fields-instead-of-deleting-them.bad.al +++ b/microsoft/knowledge/breaking-changes/obsolete-table-fields-instead-of-deleting-them.bad.al @@ -3,9 +3,10 @@ table 50311 "Customer Profile Bad" fields { field(1; "No."; Code[20]) { } - // Breaking: the published field was renamed while retaining ID 2. + // Breaking: the published Email field at ID 3 was renamed while retaining + // the ID. The good example keeps Email at ID 3 and adds a separate field. // AppSourceCop AS0005 rejects the compatibility change; retaining the ID // does not by itself mean the stored column was dropped and re-created. - field(2; "Contact Email"; Text[80]) { } + field(3; "Contact Email"; Text[80]) { } } }