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>
1.8 KiB
| bc-version | domain | keywords | technologies | countries | application-area | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
upgrade |
|
|
|
|
Primary-key and field-type changes are safe only on tables without existing data
Description
Primary-key changes and field-type changes (for example widening Integer to BigInteger) rewrite the on-disk layout of every row in the table. On a new feature table that ships in the same change as the modification, no rows exist and the change is free. On an existing table that already holds tenant data — base-app tables, ledger entries, anything that has been live across releases — the same change can fail outright (key uniqueness violations, value overflow on conversion) or require a full table rewrite during the upgrade window. Either way, the change needs an explicit migration design, not just a metadata edit.
Best Practice
Treat primary-key and field-type changes as restricted to tables introduced in the same change. For changes on tables with existing data, design and ship the corresponding upgrade procedure (typically backed by DataTransfer and an upgrade tag) that guarantees the new layout is achievable for every row, and verify with concrete evidence that the existing values fit the new constraint (no PK collisions, no value-range overflow).
See sample: breaking-changes-only-on-tables-without-data.good.al.
Anti Pattern
Changing the primary key on a base-app table, or widening / narrowing a field type on a table that has been shipping for releases, with no accompanying upgrade plan. The change compiles cleanly and may even deploy on an empty-ish tenant, then fails on customers who actually have data.
See sample: breaking-changes-only-on-tables-without-data.bad.al.