mirror of
https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality.git
synced 2026-10-07 23:56:56 +01:00
31206f6616
Addresses microsoft/BCQuality#175 review feedback: - Extend al-data-modeling-review's entry gate/relevance scope and token list to recognize document actions, Navigate subscribers, Report Selection registration, price-calculation/price-source extensibility, TransferFields posting-cascade mirroring, and barcode font-provider usage - previously excluded before any worklist cue could run. - Fix document-print-and-email-actions-call-report-selections-directly: permit the legitimate stateless DocumentSendingProfile.TrySendToPrinter/ TrySendToEMail path; rework the bad fixture to load a configured profile instead of demonstrating a trivial blank-record no-op. - Fix extend-report-selection-usage-for-new-document-types: scope to the applicable single counterparty (ReportSelectionHandlerCZZ partitions strictly; only genuinely two-sided usages like Compensation need both), and add the page-facing usage-enum map/validate events alongside the filter-event subscription for full Document Layouts support. - Fix a stale field-citation in custom-document-dispatch-must-not-bypass- report-selections (Custom Report Layout Code is field 7, not part of the 19-26 email-configuration range). - Add deterministic positive/clean evaluation coverage (review-fixtures.json additionalArticles + Test-ReviewFixtures.ps1 support) so all 9 new good/bad pairs are actually exercised, not just present. - Add 4 new patterns: activate-new-price-calculation-handler-via- onfindsupportedsetup, extend-price-source-type-must-sync-document- subset-enum, new-price-source-must-add-candidate-and-trigger- recalculation, report-barcodes-must-use-barcode-module-and-production- font-name. All claims verified against live microsoft/BCApps source and Microsoft Learn. Validators: frontmatter 0/0, review-fixtures 52 cases/17 domains PASSED, knowledge-index 309 articles PASSED. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
96 lines
4.7 KiB
Markdown
96 lines
4.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
bc-version: [all]
|
|
domain: data-modeling
|
|
keywords: [barcode, qr-code, barcode-font-provider, report-layout, saas, idautomation]
|
|
technologies: [al]
|
|
countries: [w1]
|
|
application-area: [all]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Generate report barcodes through the Barcode module, with the production font name
|
|
|
|
## Description
|
|
|
|
Business Central's barcode support lives in the System Application's
|
|
`Barcode` module (`src/System Application/App/Barcode`), not in a
|
|
project's own code: `interface "Barcode Font Provider"` /
|
|
`"Barcode Font Provider 2D"`, `enum "Barcode Symbology"` /
|
|
`"Barcode Symbology 2D"` (Code39, Code128, EAN-13, QR-Code, Data Matrix,
|
|
and more), and built-in implementations
|
|
(`codeunit 9215 "IDAutomation 1D Provider"`,
|
|
`codeunit 9221 "IDAutomation 2D Provider"`). A report encodes a data
|
|
string into a barcode string via this API; the layout then displays that
|
|
string using a barcode *font*.
|
|
|
|
On Business Central online, this is available with no setup at all:
|
|
"With Business Central online, the IDAutomation fonts are automatically
|
|
available as part of the service. So you can start adding barcodes to
|
|
reports right away." (Microsoft Learn, "Adding Barcodes to Reports") —
|
|
unlike on-premises, where the fonts must be purchased and installed on
|
|
the server.
|
|
|
|
That ease hides a SaaS-specific trap in the one manual step the API
|
|
doesn't cover: naming the actual font in the report layout. IDAutomation
|
|
ships both a purchased font and a same-looking evaluation font per
|
|
version (Code 39: `IDAutomationHC39M` purchased vs.
|
|
`IDAutomationSHC39M Demo` evaluation). Per Microsoft Learn ("Barcode
|
|
Fonts with Business Central Online"): "When you're applying barcode font
|
|
in the report layout for a Business Central online production
|
|
environment, be sure to use the purchased font name; not the evaluation
|
|
font name. If you use the evaluation font name, the barcode won't
|
|
render." Getting the font name wrong doesn't distort the barcode — it
|
|
produces nothing, in a step that lives in the layout file, not in AL, so
|
|
no compiler or reviewer catches it by reading the report object. Nothing
|
|
in the cited documentation says what an evaluation font name does outside
|
|
a production environment — the claim here is scoped exactly as
|
|
Microsoft states it: wrong in production, full stop.
|
|
|
|
## Best Practice
|
|
|
|
Encode through the real API — declare the provider via its interface and
|
|
enum, then call `ValidateInput`/`EncodeFont` — and treat naming the
|
|
production font in the layout as an equally required part of the same
|
|
task, not an afterthought left to whoever happens to touch the `.docx`/
|
|
`.rdl` file. For a two-dimensional symbology other than Maxicode, the
|
|
font name to specify is literally `IDAutomation2D` (Maxicode itself uses
|
|
`IDAutomation2D MaxiCode`); for a one-dimensional symbology, use the
|
|
purchased version name for that specific font (e.g. `IDAutomationHC39M`
|
|
for Code 39), never a name containing `Demo`.
|
|
|
|
See sample: `report-barcodes-must-use-barcode-module-and-production-font-name.good.al`.
|
|
|
|
## Anti Pattern
|
|
|
|
Constructing a barcode string by hand — string concatenation, manual
|
|
delimiters — instead of going through the Barcode module's provider
|
|
interface. It can look right (asterisks around a value, resembling
|
|
Code 39) while carrying none of the platform's actual character-set
|
|
handling or checksum logic, so it's wrong regardless of which font is
|
|
later applied to it.
|
|
|
|
A second version of the same underlying mistake: encoding correctly
|
|
through the real API, but naming the evaluation font instead of the
|
|
purchased one in the layout. Both produce a report that looks complete
|
|
in review and testing and fails silently — the first because the encoded
|
|
data was never a real barcode, the second because Business Central
|
|
online refuses to render it at all.
|
|
|
|
See sample: `report-barcodes-must-use-barcode-module-and-production-font-name.bad.al`.
|
|
|
|
## Source
|
|
|
|
BCApps System Application (`src/System Application/App/Barcode/src/`):
|
|
`Barcode Provider/Font/BarcodeFontProvider.Interface.al`
|
|
(`ValidateInput(InputText: Text; BarcodeSymbology: Enum "Barcode Symbology")`,
|
|
`EncodeFont(InputText: Text; BarcodeSymbology: Enum "Barcode Symbology"): Text`),
|
|
`Barcode Provider/Font/BarcodeFontProvider.Enum.al`
|
|
(`value(0; IDAutomation1D)`), `Barcode Provider/BarcodeSymbology.Enum.al`
|
|
(`value(100; Code39)`). Real BaseApp usage:
|
|
`src/Layers/W1/BaseApp/Inventory/Item/ItemGTINLabel.Report.al`
|
|
(`report 6625 "Item GTIN Label"`, lines 44-64).
|
|
|
|
Microsoft Learn: "Adding Barcodes to Reports"
|
|
(https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/business-central/dev-itpro/developer/devenv-report-add-barcodes)
|
|
and "Barcode Fonts with Business Central Online"
|
|
(https://learn.microsoft.com/dynamics365/business-central/dev-itpro/developer/devenv-report-barcode-fonts)
|
|
— both quoted verbatim above.
|