The narrowed UI-handler guidance still stated the execution rule without the
qualifier the linked Microsoft reference uses. The article said every listed
handler must execute at least once, and the testing leaf skill asked for
`[HandlerFunctions(...)]` to match the invoked handlers exactly. The reference
says every *nonoptional* listed handler must execute, and that send-notification
and recall-notification handlers can be optional. As written, an agent could
flag a deliberately unused optional notification handler.
The discriminator is narrower than the handler type. Both
`[SendNotificationHandler([HandlerIsOptional: Boolean])]` and
`[RecallNotificationHandler([HandlerIsOptional: Boolean])]` take an explicit
optionality argument, so `[SendNotificationHandler(true)]` is exempt while the
same attribute written without the argument stays nonoptional like every other
handler type. Keying the exemption on the argument rather than the type keeps it
checkable from the diff and avoids the opposite false positive, where an agent
stops flagging genuinely nonoptional notification handlers.
Changes:
- The article now states the nonoptional qualifier, explains that optionality is
declared rather than inferred, and adds an explicit do-not-flag clause. That
clause also forbids proposing removal, because the listed entry is what keeps
the test passing on the runs where the notification does fire.
- The testing leaf skill carries the same boundary in its `ui-handlers-in-tests`
cue, and its mechanical-fix list no longer allows removing a listed optional
notification handler as a one-click suggestion.
- `SendNotificationHandler` and `RecallNotificationHandler` were missing from the
skill's testing token list, so notification handlers were not reliably
surfaced to the relevance step at all. Both are now listed.
- The good sample gains a test that lists an unreached
`[SendNotificationHandler(true)]`; the bad sample gains the mirror image, an
unreached `[SendNotificationHandler]` with no optionality argument. The pair
differs only by that argument, which is the point.
- `evaluation/review-fixtures.json` pins the testing domain to
`ui-handlers-in-tests` so the boundary is exercised: the good sample is the
clean control at `minimumCleanRate` 1.0 and the bad sample is the expected
finding. Keywords were retagged with `notification` and `optional-handler`.
validate_frontmatter.py reports 0 errors; Test-ReviewFixtures.ps1 passes with
32 cases across 16 leaf domains and resolves the testing fixture to this article.
* 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>
* Add testing knowledge: UI handlers, table relations, asserterror, fixtures (P1+P2)
Six BC-specific testing-domain knowledge articles in community/knowledge/testing/, each with .good.al/.bad.al samples:
- ui-calls-require-test-handlers
- tablerelation-requires-prerequisite-records
- handlers-enqueue-never-assert
- handlerfunctions-attribute-must-match-ui-path
- asserterror-needs-expectederror-and-code
- use-library-codeunits-for-test-fixtures
Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
* Move testing knowledge from community to microsoft layer
Relocates the six P1+P2 testing-domain articles (18 files: .md + .good.al + .bad.al each) from community/knowledge/testing/ to microsoft/knowledge/testing/ per maintainer request. Pure git-mv rename; no content or frontmatter changes.
Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
* Address review: merge handler articles, adopt enqueue-driven pattern
Respond to @nikolakukrika's review on #62:
- Merge ui-calls-require-test-handlers, handlerfunctions-attribute-must-match-ui-path
and handlers-enqueue-never-assert into a single ui-handlers-in-tests article.
- Adopt the enqueue-from-test / dequeue-and-assert-in-handler pattern using
Assert.ExpectedConfirm/ExpectedMessage (substring match), with Initialize()
clearing LibraryVariableStorage and AssertEmpty() proving exact call counts.
- asserterror sample now uses Assert.ExpectedTestFieldError + FieldCaption instead
of hardcoded message/code; article text points to the library helpers.
- Drop the tablerelation article and fold its test-relevant ordering point
(relations checked on Validate/Insert(true); build parents first) into
use-library-codeunits-for-test-fixtures.
Article count 198 -> 195.
Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
---------
Co-authored-by: Jesper Schulz-Wedde <jesper.schulzwedde@microsoft.com>
Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
