mirror of
https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality.git
synced 2026-08-06 17:36:53 +01:00
62dabf9a11
The /samples/ top-level tree is replaced with sibling files in each
knowledge-layer folder. An article and its demonstrations now live
side-by-side:
microsoft/knowledge/<domain>/<slug>.md
microsoft/knowledge/<domain>/<slug>.good.al
microsoft/knowledge/<domain>/<slug>.bad.al
Rationale:
- Proximity. An article and its paired samples are one unit; the
filesystem now reflects that.
- Layer ownership. Samples inherit layer precedence for free -- a
/custom/ fork can override an article and its samples atomically,
which the shared /samples/ tree previously made awkward.
- Trivial migration path. Action-skill source globs
(*/knowledge/<domain>/**/*.md) are unchanged; sample discovery is a
sibling-filename lookup.
Changes:
- git mv of all 65 sample files from samples/<domain>/<slug>/{bad,good}.al
to microsoft/knowledge/<domain>/<slug>.{bad,good}.al (history preserved).
- Update See-sample references in all 37 articles that ship samples.
- skills/read.md: replace the no-code-blocks bullet with a pointer to a
new Sample files section that fully specifies the sibling convention,
the kinds (good/bad + forward-compatible), multi-technology rules,
demonstration-only status, and layer-precedence behaviour.
- skills/write.md: update the samples pointer to match.
- README.md: annotate the knowledge tree with the sample sibling shape.
- samples/README.md deleted; content lifted into skills/read.md.
- Both generators (C:\temp\gen_performance_knowledge.py,
C:\temp\gen_security_knowledge.py) updated to emit at the new paths
and to stop writing samples/README.md. Re-running them is idempotent
against the committed layout.
Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
27 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
27 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
bc-version: [26..28]
|
|
domain: performance
|
|
keywords: [insert, modify, delete, triggers, parameters]
|
|
technologies: [al]
|
|
countries: [w1]
|
|
application-area: [all]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Choose Insert, Modify, and Delete parameters deliberately
|
|
|
|
> **Seed article.** Converted from an existing performance-review prompt to bootstrap the BCQuality performance corpus. Domain stewards should expand, restructure, and refine as needed.
|
|
|
|
## Description
|
|
|
|
Insert, Modify, and Delete accept a boolean that controls whether the table's OnInsert / OnModify / OnDelete trigger fires. Running the trigger for scratch or migrated data is often unnecessary work — side effects, posting rules, validations — for rows that were already validated upstream. Running the trigger when application logic depends on it is non-negotiable.
|
|
|
|
## Best Practice
|
|
|
|
Call Insert(true), Modify(true), or Delete(true) when the table's trigger logic is part of the operation's semantics. Call Insert(false), Modify(false), or Delete(false) when the operation is bulk data movement or temporary-table manipulation and the trigger would duplicate work or fire invalid side effects.
|
|
|
|
See sample: `use-insert-false-when-skipping-triggers.good.al`.
|
|
|
|
## Anti Pattern
|
|
|
|
Blindly passing `true` everywhere pays for triggers on rows that do not need them. Blindly passing `false` silently skips validations that the table's author intended to be mandatory.
|
|
|