07e324ddbc
* Add Finance posting domain-knowledge pilot Adds three atomic domain-rule knowledge files under community/knowledge/finance/ as a pilot for Type-A (normative) Business Central domain knowledge: post through the posting engine, treat posted ledger entries as immutable, and treat the Dimension Set ID as the source of truth for dimensions. Includes a good/bad AL sample pair for the posting rule. These encode BC-specific invariants that LLMs reliably get wrong, fitting the existing remedial/atomic knowledge grain with no schema or contract changes. Passes the repo frontmatter validator and is discovered by the knowledge index. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Clarify editable operational fields on posted ledger entries Addresses review feedback from @JeremyVyska on PR #57: the immutability rule applies to financial content, not the whole entry. Reframes the Description around financial content and gives the operational-field exception (payment/application data, on-hold, applies-to, communication fields edited via CustEntry-Edit/VendEntry-Edit and the ledger entry pages) its own paragraph in Best Practice instead of understating it as a narrow set. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Expand Finance pilot into a source-verified review domain Move Finance knowledge to the Microsoft-owned layer, add nine scoped rules with eighteen AL samples, and register bounded Finance review with complete paired evaluation coverage. Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Fix Finance review applicability and ownership boundaries Remove application-area gating and later VAT-field dependencies, align dynamic shared conventions, separate SCM ownership, and keep journal examples focused on the intended invariant. Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Remove logo branding (#194) Co-authored-by: Jesper Schulz-Wedde <jesper.schulzwedde@microsoft.com> Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Add title and description to README * Add foundational AL developer knowledge (#195) Co-authored-by: Jesper Schulz-Wedde <jesper.schulzwedde@microsoft.com> Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Clarify locale-safe DateFormula Evaluate inputs (#193) * Clarify locale-safe DateFormula Evaluate inputs Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Normalize DateFormula article sections Keep the analyzer-gap explanation in Description and its scoped probe evidence in References, without a novel Validation section. Normative guidance and fixtures are unchanged. 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 App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Add SCM functional knowledge domain (#192) * Add SCM functional knowledge domain Introduce nine source-backed rules with original AL sample pairs, bounded SCM review routing, and complete positive/clean evaluation coverage. Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Normalize SCM knowledge and review ownership Align article and AL sample conventions, keep BC facts separate from review mechanics, and clarify reciprocal Finance ownership without bespoke shared test assertions. 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 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>
2.7 KiB
| bc-version | domain | keywords | technologies | countries | application-area | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
finance |
|
|
|
|
Pass the transaction number, not a ledger-entry number, to ReverseTransaction
Description
Reversal Entry.ReverseTransaction expects a transaction number, while ReverseRegister expects a G/L register number. Neither parameter means a ledger Entry No.. All are integers, so the compiler accepts the wrong identity; a coincidentally matching integer can select another transaction instead of the posting the user intended to reverse.
Best Practice
When starting from a G/L Entry, fetch that entry and pass its Transaction No. to Reversal Entry.ReverseTransaction, as the sample does. The same identity distinction applies to customer/vendor ledger entries when using their supported transaction-reversal path. If the starting point is a G/L register, use Reversal Entry.ReverseRegister with that register's number. The interactive workflow collects the participating entries and validates reversal eligibility before the user posts the reversal.
Do not infer eligibility from Open alone or bypass a rejection by changing origin, application, or reversal fields. The supported path depends on source and state; some postings require unapplication or a correcting document first. A request to reverse is not a guarantee that reversal will be permitted. This rule concerns the two named Reversal Entry APIs, not routines such as UnApplyCustLedgEntry that legitimately accept a ledger entry number.
See sample: reverse-transactions-by-transaction-number.good.al.
Anti Pattern
Pass a ledger entry's Entry No. or a register number into ReverseTransaction, or pass a ledger-entry/transaction number into ReverseRegister. Require visible value provenance, not merely a suspicious variable name or an arbitrary integer. A correctly sourced transaction number is valid even when the variable is poorly named.
See sample: reverse-transactions-by-transaction-number.bad.al.