Microsoft/bcquality
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality.git synced 2026-10-05 14:46:55 +01:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 4

knowledge: improve review precision from BCApps PR 10080 feedback (#128)

Browse source 
* knowledge: improve review precision from BCApps PR 10080 feedback

* Update microsoft/knowledge/appsource/object-affixes-prevent-collisions.md

Co-authored-by: Natalie Karolak, MVP <34504100+NKarolak@users.noreply.github.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Jesper Schulz-Wedde <JesperSchulz@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Natalie Karolak, MVP <34504100+NKarolak@users.noreply.github.com>
This commit is contained in:
Wael 2026-09-02 03:16:30 -06:00 • committed by GitHub
parent 00c9307483
commit f027e28f83
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: B5690EEEBB952194
2 changed files with 6 additions and 2 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
microsoft/knowledge/appsource/object-affixes-prevent-collisions.md
View file

@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
---
bc-version: [all]
domain: appsource
keywords: [object-affix, prefix, suffix, as0011, appsourcecop, collision, tableextension]
keywords: [object-affix, prefix, suffix, as0011, appsourcecop, collision, tableextension, first-party, isv]
technologies: [al]
countries: [w1]
application-area: [all]
@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ An AppSource extension must prevent name collisions through its registered affix
AppSourceCop enforces this. The primary rule is AS0011 ("An affix is required"); the affixes are configured through `mandatoryAffixes` (and `mandatoryPrefix`) in `AppSourceCop.json`. Two placements matter and are easy to get half-right: an object you define carries the affix at **object-name** level, while a member you add to a **standard** object carries the affix on that **member's** name. Adding an affixed object is not enough — an unaffixed field bolted onto `Customer` still collides and still fails validation.
This rule scopes to Marketplace ISV extensions, which is what AppSourceCop validates. A first-party Microsoft in-box module (publisher `Microsoft`, an object range reserved for first-party use, and no `AppSourceCop.json`/`mandatoryAffixes` in the app) is not built or shipped as an Marketplace extension and is not subject to AS0011, so an unaffixed action or field it adds to a base-application page is not a collision risk to flag. Renaming an existing shipped first-party member to add an affix is itself a breaking change to that module's own history and is not required by this rule.
## Best Practice
Own objects use the registered affix (for example `ABC Loyalty Tier`) or, when targeting BC23 or later, a qualifying namespace. Every field or action added to a standard object remains individually affixed (for example `Loyalty Points ABC` on a `Customer` tableextension).

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

@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
---
bc-version: [all]
domain: error-handling
keywords: [fielderror, testfield, field-validation, onvalidate, error-message, mandatory-field, record-context]
keywords: [fielderror, testfield, field-validation, onvalidate, error-message, mandatory-field, record-context, onaction, enabled-property]
technologies: [al]
countries: [w1]
application-area: [all]
@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ 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.
A page action's `OnAction` trigger is a different case: a page action is only invocable through its own UI control, so when the action's `Enabled` property is already bound to the same condition the trigger would otherwise `TestField`, the control cannot be clicked while the field is blank and the field can never reach the trigger empty. Adding a `TestField` there is redundant defensive code, not a missing check — flag it only when the trigger can run through a path `Enabled` does not cover (a shared procedure, an API, or a condition broader than what gates the action).
See sample: `fielderror-vs-testfield.good.al`.
## Anti Pattern