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>
1.3 KiB
| bc-version | domain | keywords | technologies | countries | application-area | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ui |
|
|
|
|
Cosmetic styles need no textual context
Description
A field's Style property controls text formatting. Some style values are purely cosmetic — they change visual appearance but do not convey semantic meaning. Cosmetic styles never require additional context and must not be reported as accessibility findings:
None,StandardStandardAccent(Blue)Strong(Bold),StrongAccent(Blue + Bold)Attention(Red + Italic),AttentionAccent(Blue + Italic)Subordinate(Grey)
This list is exhaustive — every other named style on the platform either falls outside the cosmetic set or is one of the three semantic styles documented in semantic-styles-need-independent-textual-meaning.md.
The same rule applies whether the cosmetic style is set via Style directly or via a StyleExpr Text variable. If the resolved value at runtime is one of the cosmetic styles above, the field is safe.
Best Practice
Use cosmetic styles freely for visual emphasis. Do not treat the use of Attention, Strong, or any other cosmetic value as an accessibility issue — the colors and weights are purely presentational and carry no meaning a screen reader needs to convey.