a9f3c50863
The previous LLM-generated knowledge files contained factual
hallucinations. The most visible was the claim that `FindFirst` /
`FindLast` "forces a full-table scan" on an unfiltered record - it does
not; those APIs return a single row via the current key.
Other inaccuracies the audit found and fixed:
* `FindSet(true)` was described as "taking a LockTable". The correct
upstream phrasing is that `FindSet(true)` sets
`ReadIsolation::UpdLock` on the read. UpdLock and LockTable are
related but distinct mechanisms.
* The list of production-scale tables had been invented beyond the
upstream source (e.g. "Detailed Cust. Ledg. Entry") without a
citation. The regenerated list matches the ten tables upstream lists
with their P95 row counts.
* `SetLoadFields` guidance had been augmented with an extra mechanism
claim ("the database resolves the filter using the index without
hydrating the value") not present in upstream.
Approach: full regeneration of `microsoft/knowledge/` from the six
upstream BCApps Code Review instruction files, with Microsoft Learn /
the AL language reference as a secondary source. Every claim in every
regenerated file is anchored to a verbatim upstream quote (or a Learn
URL); the audit trail lives in artifacts/trace-<domain>.json on the
session workspace.
The PR #11 transaction/error-handling cluster is preserved verbatim:
* performance/understand-implicit-transaction-boundary.md
* performance/codeunit-run-as-atomic-sub-operation.{md,good.al,bad.al}
* performance/codeunit-run-requires-prior-commit-inside-transaction.{md,good.al,bad.al}
* performance/use-tryfunction-for-error-catching-not-rollback.{md,good.al,bad.al}
* performance/avoid-commit-inside-loops.{md,good.al,bad.al}
* security/commitbehavior-attribute-scopes-explicit-commits.{md,good.al,bad.al}
* testing/transactionmodel-attribute-governs-test-transactions.{md,good.al,bad.al}
These articles already cite Microsoft Learn and were carefully
cross-referenced; the regeneration skips their topics rather than
duplicating them.
File counts after regeneration:
performance 35 .md (5 preserved + 30 new)
privacy 17 .md
security 18 .md (1 preserved + 17 new)
style 33 .md
testing 1 .md (preserved)
ui 19 .md
upgrade 18 .md
Total 141 atomic knowledge files, each strictly one rule. All pass
.github/scripts/validate_frontmatter.py with 0 errors and 0 warnings.
Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
1.4 KiB
| bc-version | domain | keywords | technologies | countries | application-area | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
performance |
|
|
|
|
Use IsEmpty for existence checks, not Count() or FindFirst()
Description
When the caller only needs to know whether any row matches a filter, IsEmpty() is the API designed for the question. Per the upstream guidance, "IsEmpty() is more efficient as it stops at first record found." Count() > 0 materializes a count the caller does not need; FindFirst() materializes a row the caller does not need. Both do work that IsEmpty does not.
Best Practice
Phrase existence checks as if not Record.IsEmpty() then ... (or if Record.IsEmpty() then ... for the negative). Apply filters via SetRange/SetFilter before the call so the existence check runs against the intended subset. Reserve Count for cases where the actual number matters and FindFirst for cases where the record fields are read.
See sample: use-isempty-for-existence-check.good.al.
Anti Pattern
if Customer.Count() > 0 then ... and if Customer.FindFirst() then ... (when the record is discarded) — both are flagged by the upstream guidance as the wrong tool. The first asks the database for the full count; the second asks for a row's fields. Both answers go unused.
See sample: use-isempty-for-existence-check.bad.al.