mirror of
https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality.git
synced 2026-08-06 17:36:53 +01:00
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>
20 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
20 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
bc-version: [all]
|
|
domain: ui
|
|
keywords: [control-add-in, javascript, accessibility, framework, wcag]
|
|
technologies: [al, javascript]
|
|
countries: [w1]
|
|
application-area: [all]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Control add-in accessibility is the developer's responsibility
|
|
|
|
## Description
|
|
|
|
When a developer builds a JavaScript control add-in, they bypass the Business Central framework's built-in accessibility support and take full responsibility for the accessibility of the rendered HTML, JavaScript, and CSS. Unlike standard AL page controls, an add-in receives no automatic ARIA semantics, no automatic keyboard handling, and no automatic high-contrast support from the BC client.
|
|
|
|
Control add-in code must be reviewed for WCAG 2.1 AA compliance and general accessibility best practices. Automated review is inherently non-exhaustive — many accessibility issues (keyboard flow, screen reader announcements, dynamic behavior) require manual testing.
|
|
|
|
## Best Practice
|
|
|
|
Treat every UI-rendering change to a control add-in as something the platform will not catch for you: accessible names, semantic HTML, keyboard reachability, focus management, contrast, and reflow are all yours to verify. When reporting issues in control add-in code, include a recommendation that a manual accessibility review accompany any control add-in that renders a UI.
|