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>
1.5 KiB
| bc-version | domain | keywords | technologies | countries | application-area | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
upgrade |
|
|
|
|
OnUpgradePerCompany / OnUpgradePerDatabase should call helpers, not inline logic
Description
The OnUpgradePerCompany and OnUpgradePerDatabase triggers on an upgrade codeunit are dispatch points, not implementation slots. They should contain only calls to named local procedures — one call per feature being upgraded. Putting ModifyAll, record loops, or any business logic directly inside the trigger body makes the upgrade impossible to read, impossible to selectively skip via upgrade tags per feature, and impossible to extend without touching the trigger itself.
Empty OnUpgradePerCompany / OnUpgradePerDatabase triggers are acceptable — they may be placeholders for future use or artifacts from cleanup.
Best Practice
Each upgrade trigger contains an ordered list of procedure calls, one per feature: UpgradeFeatureA(); UpgradeFeatureB();. Each procedure handles its own upgrade tag, its own data work, and can be added or removed independently.
See sample: triggers-call-helpers-not-implementations.good.al.
Anti Pattern
Implementing record loops, ModifyAll, or other data work directly in the trigger body. The trigger then mixes orchestration with implementation, and adding a second feature requires editing the trigger rather than appending one line.
See sample: triggers-call-helpers-not-implementations.bad.al.