Two knowledge false-positive guards addressing bug 642303 (agent FPs on BCApps PR #9607):
- breaking-changes: relocating a field to a tableextension in the same app under the same field ID/name is a relocation, not a deletion/rename; the field still resolves on the table, so it must not be flagged as a deleted shipped field or require ObsoleteState staging. Scoped to the contract axis; silent on data migration.
- events: adding a parameter to an event publisher does not break existing subscribers (subscribers bind by name and match a subset), so the addition itself must not be reported as a breaking signature change.
* Add precision guards for systematic agent false-positive patterns
Encodes reviewer-confirmed FP guards from the online eval: tooltip-inherited, page-trigger default return, drill-down filter not visible in diff, dual-trigger CalcFields (do.md); and a released-baseline precondition for breaking-change/upgrade findings on never-shipped symbols.
* Scope suggested-code and location to exactly the changed lines
Addresses reviewer-reported misplaced suggestions from the eval: insert-only-property emitting the whole field, single-statement rewrites anchored on the procedure name, and reductive multi-line collapses. The skill now emits a location range that matches precisely the rewritten lines.
* Correct suggested-code scoping guidance to match one-click anchor mechanics
A lone inserted line matches no existing file line and cannot be anchored; bracket the new line with one adjacent unchanged line instead. Reductive collapses omit suggested-code and fall back to a manual snippet.
* Move BC-specific FP guards out of do.md into leaf skills
do.md is the stable action-skill template and must stay domain-agnostic (JesperSchulz review). Relocate the four known false-positive patterns to their domain leaves: ToolTip-inheritance to al-ui-review; drill-down/lookup filtering and CalcFields lifecycle to al-performance-review; page-trigger exit(true) semantics to al-error-handling-review.
* Move suggested-code line-scoping guidance out of do.md into al-code-review
do.md must not carry instructions for how the review skill behaves (JesperSchulz review). Relocate the location/suggested-code precise-span rules to al-code-review's existing Suggested-code guidance section. do.md is now unchanged vs main.
* Move false-positive guards from skills into knowledge files
Keep review skills slim (finders/appliers). The FP guards and released-baseline preconditions previously embedded in leaf skills become negative-clarification knowledge articles in their domains, and the agent-findings policy edits to al-ui/al-privacy are reverted to main. Adds 6 knowledge files: error-handling (page-boolean-triggers-default-to-true), ui (bound-page-field-inherits-source-field-tooltip), performance (calcfields-in-both-getrecord-triggers-is-not-redundant, page-effective-filter-may-live-outside-the-diff), breaking-changes (unreleased-symbol-change-is-not-a-breaking-change), upgrade (unreleased-schema-change-needs-no-upgrade-path).
* Revert branch's suggested-code scoping addition in al-code-review
The three location-span shapes added to al-code-review are output-format mechanics, not domain knowledge: one-click span correctness is the engine's job (Resolve-SuggestionPlacement) and do.md already owns the suggested-code/location contract. The AL concerns the examples illustrate are already covered by existing knowledge (use-isempty-for-existence-check, data-classification-required-on-pii-fields, no-space-before-method-parenthesis). Restores al-code-review to main; the branch now adds only the 6 knowledge files.
* Restore al-ui/al-privacy review skills to base (zero diff in PR)
These two leaf skills carried an accidental net change against the PR merge-base because an earlier revert used the current origin/main (post-#110) instead of the branch base (pre-#110). Restoring them to the merge-base version removes them from the PR diff entirely. Three-way merge still preserves main's #110 suppression.
---------
Co-authored-by: wenjiefan <wenjiefan@microsoft.com>
* Complete AL review knowledge readiness
Fill telemetry and Query coverage, strengthen thin review domains, correct audited content defects, and add deterministic cheap-model evaluation and reference-integrity safeguards.
Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Copilot-Session: 9825b012-e653-496a-9310-c1f4b6f8ac27
* Generalize review fixture discovery
Derive smoke cases from the leaf, domain, and paired-sample conventions so new leaves require no scoring-contract changes. Keep only exceptional selection/context overrides and fail when retrieval metadata cannot rank the selected article.
Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Copilot-Session: 9825b012-e653-496a-9310-c1f4b6f8ac27
* Preserve published field IDs in sample
Keep the existing Email and Contact Email field IDs unchanged, clarify that the sample represents an independent baseline, and use a local breaking-change rule for the generic smoke evaluation.
Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Copilot-Session: 9825b012-e653-496a-9310-c1f4b6f8ac27
* Clarify published field identity rules
State explicitly that a published field keeps its ID, name, and type while a replacement is added as a separate field under an unused ID.
Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Copilot-Session: 9825b012-e653-496a-9310-c1f4b6f8ac27
* 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
---------
Co-authored-by: Jesper Schulz-Wedde <jesper.schulzwedde@microsoft.com>
Seed a new breaking-changes (AL API stability) knowledge domain with six
articles plus good/bad AL samples, a new al-breaking-changes-review leaf
skill, and minimal wiring into al-code-review and the README.
Co-authored-by: Jesper Schulz-Wedde <jesper.schulzwedde@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
