mirror of
https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality.git
synced 2026-10-05 22:56:55 +01:00
186691f815
* Add 3 more AL/BC patterns from CURABIS Academy testing course material Third batch from CURABIS ApS: item-ledger-entry document-no lookup after Ship-and-Invoice posting, TestPage.Visible()/.Enabled() as the mechanism for verifying field UI state, and LibraryUtility.GenerateGUID() for collision-free test fixture values. * Address Jesper Schulz-Wedde's review on PR #158 - use-generateguid-for-unique-test-fixture-values.md: GenerateGUID() is a Code[10] number-series value, not a real GUID; truncating it with CopyStr for a shorter field cuts off the changing digits. Point to GenerateRandomCode/GenerateRandomCodeWithLength/GenerateRandomXMLText instead, which verify uniqueness against the actual table. - Split use-testpage-visible-enabled-to-verify-field-ui-state.md: drop its editability claim (the sample opens with OpenView() and asserts Enabled(), which verifies enabled state, not editability — Editable() and Enabled() are distinct TestField methods). New companion article use-testpage-editable-to-verify-field-editability.md covers Editable() with OpenEdit() specifically. - Wire GenerateGUID/CopyStr and TestPage Visible/Enabled/Editable cues into al-testing-review.md, and the Item Ledger Entry/Last Shipping No. posting cue into al-data-modeling-review.md. The Item Ledger Entry article itself was independently verified against current BCApps source and needs no changes. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * Address second round of Jesper Schulz-Wedde's review on PR #158 - use-generateguid-for-unique-test-fixture-values.md/.good.al: documented each LibraryUtility helper's actual behavior, verified against LibraryUtility.Codeunit.al. GenerateRandomCode opens the target table as a temporary RecordRef, so despite taking TableNo it never checks real data. GenerateRandomXMLText performs no table lookup at all. Only GenerateRandomCodeWithLength/GenerateRandomCode20 (capped at Code[10]/ Code[20]) genuinely verify against the real table. Fixture switched to GenerateRandomCodeWithLength where the comment claims verified uniqueness. - al-testing-review.md: rewired the cue to catch the actual anti-pattern (hardcoded literals, hand-built uniqueness, short-field GUID truncation) instead of only matching the compliant GenerateGUID()+CopyStr shape; broadened tokens to include TestPage, Library - Utility, and .Visible()/.Enabled()/.Editable(). - al-data-modeling-review.md: restricted the Item Ledger Entry Last-Shipping-No. cue to sales combined posting; purchase combined posting is Receive+Invoice and uses different fields entirely. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> * Fix remaining correctness issues from Jesper's 2026-09-15 re-review - use-generateguid-for-unique-test-fixture-values.md: narrowed the collision rule to primary-key/unique-lookup fields - an ordinary descriptive field carries no uniqueness constraint, so a hardcoded or deterministic value there isn't the anti-pattern (the article and its al-testing-review.md worklist cue both said "primary-key or descriptive field"). Also corrected GenerateRandomCode: it opens its target table as a temporary RecordRef that starts and stays empty, so its repeat/until loop always exits after one iteration and never retries even within a single test run - the "non-colliding within a test run" claim was false. It's the rightmost N characters of GenerateGUID()'s sequential series, so a short field's value cycles (Code[1] repeats every 10 calls, Code[2] every 100). Verified against LibraryUtility.Codeunit.al in the BCApps reference clone. - item-ledger-entry-document-no-follows-last-shipping-no: both fixtures called FindSet() without consuming its optional Boolean, which raises a runtime error on an empty result set - the opposite of the article's own claimed "silently matches zero rows, no error" behavior. Wrapped in `if ... then;` per the existing guard-database-reads.good.al idiom. - al-data-modeling-review.md: widened both not-applicable scope clauses (intro and outcome) to include dimension wiring, posting- routine structure, and Item Ledger Entry document-number lookups - the leaf declared itself not-applicable outside setup/master/key/ numbering/block/audit surfaces despite having a targeted cue for this PR's own new article. - Converted this PR's 8 plain-backtick "See sample: `x.good.al`." references (across all 4 new articles) to the READ-convention markdown-link form required by Knowledge-Retrieval.ps1. Rebased onto upstream/main (one conflict in al-data-modeling-review.md intro wording, merged). * Stop routing GenerateRandomCode20 as compliant for shorter fields al-testing-review.md's cue presented GenerateRandomCodeWithLength and GenerateRandomCode20 as interchangeable options for "a shorter field needing real verified uniqueness." They aren't: verified against LibraryUtility.Codeunit.al, GenerateRandomCode20 truncates GenerateGUID()'s sequential value down to the target field's length by keeping the leftmost (slowest-changing) characters via PadStr, so its retry loop against a field shorter than 20 can churn through the same truncated prefix for a long time. GenerateRandomCodeWithLength has no such problem (it generates exactly the requested length of random text). The knowledge article itself already scoped GenerateRandomCode20 to Code[20] correctly - only the skill cue needed narrowing to match. --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
26 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
26 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
bc-version: [all]
|
|
domain: testing
|
|
keywords: [testpage, visible, enabled, ui-state, headless-test, field-verification]
|
|
technologies: [al]
|
|
countries: [w1]
|
|
application-area: [all]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Verify field visibility and enabled state with TestPage.Visible()/.Enabled()
|
|
|
|
## Description
|
|
|
|
A UI test codeunit does not need to inspect table or page properties indirectly to confirm a field is shown or enabled under given conditions. The `TestPage` object exposes a `Visible()` and an `Enabled()` function on each field, reflecting the page's actual rendered state, callable directly from a `[Test]` procedure. `Enabled()` and `Editable()` are distinct states — this article covers visibility/enabled state specifically; see `use-testpage-editable-to-verify-field-editability.md` for verifying whether a field can actually be changed.
|
|
|
|
## Best Practice
|
|
|
|
Open the `TestPage`, navigate to the relevant record if needed, then assert against `TestPageField.Visible()` and `TestPageField.Enabled()` to verify the field's shown/enabled state, rather than checking an unrelated table/page property or skipping the check.
|
|
|
|
See sample: [`use-testpage-visible-enabled-to-verify-field-ui-state.good.al`](use-testpage-visible-enabled-to-verify-field-ui-state.good.al).
|
|
|
|
## Anti Pattern
|
|
|
|
A test that opens the `TestPage` but never asserts against `Visible()`/`Enabled()` on the field in question — confirming only that the page opens, not that the field behaves as expected.
|
|
|
|
See sample: [`use-testpage-visible-enabled-to-verify-field-ui-state.bad.al`](use-testpage-visible-enabled-to-verify-field-ui-state.bad.al).
|