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 10255 feedback

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
github-actions[bot] 2026-09-09 12:09:07 +00:00
parent 8584217c75
commit ff91a136a2
1 changed files with 3 additions and 1 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
microsoft/knowledge/data-modeling/owning-table-must-delete-dependents-in-ondelete.md
View file

@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
---
bc-version: [all]
domain: data-modeling
keywords: [ondelete, cascade, table-relation, orphan-records, header-line, dependent-records, referential-integrity]
keywords: [ondelete, cascade, table-relation, orphan-records, header-line, dependent-records, referential-integrity, activity-log, retention]
technologies: [al]
countries: [w1]
application-area: [all]
@ -19,6 +19,8 @@ Orphaned rows are usually invisible, because a dependent table rarely has a page
This applies to internal, staging and `SystemMetadata` tables too. A table having no delete action in the UI today is not protection: a permission set that grants `D` on the table is evidence that deletion is anticipated.
This also applies to log, activity, comment and history tables that are lifecycle-owned by a source document (for example an approval/activity log keyed by the source record's `SystemId`). Deleting those rows in the owning document's `OnDelete` is not a loss of audit trail to flag as a defect — it is the same cascade-delete obligation described above, and it avoids leaving orphaned personal data (who acted, comments, timestamps) behind after the document itself is gone. Longer retention or independent archival of that history is a distinct, deliberate feature (its own retention/archival design), not something the presence of a cascading `OnDelete` is missing by default.
See also `validate-table-relation-false-suppresses-rename-propagation.md` for the two preconditions on the rename half of this asymmetry.
## Best Practice