bcquality/microsoft/knowledge/error-handling/unchecked-get-throws-when-record-not-found.md

bc-version	domain	keywords	technologies	countries	application-area
all	error-handling	get record-not-found runtime-error return-value boolean-method false-positive	al	w1	all

An unchecked Record.Get raises an error when the record is missing; it is not silently ignored

Description

Record.Get returns a Boolean, but its behavior when no record is found depends on whether the return value is consumed. When the return value is used — inside if Rec.Get(...) then, or assigned to a variable — a missing record yields false and execution continues. When Rec.Get(...) is called as a bare statement and the return value is not used, the platform raises a runtime "record not found" error if the record does not exist. A bare Rec.Get(Key) therefore acts as an assertion that the record exists: it does not swallow or silently ignore a missing record. This mirrors other AL find methods, where an unconsumed return value lets the platform enforce the not-found error.

Best Practice

Do not claim that a Record.Get whose return value is unused silently ignores a missing record or hides an error. Treat a bare Rec.Get(...) statement as an intentional existence assertion that already throws when the record is absent. Recommend an explicit existence check only when the surrounding logic must continue gracefully rather than error out.

Anti Pattern

Flagging a bare Rec.Get(Key) statement as a defect because "the return value is ignored, so a missing record is swallowed", or recommending it be wrapped in if Rec.Get(...) then ... else Error(...) to "handle the not-found case" — the unchecked call already raises an error when the record is missing.

See also

• ignored-tryfunction-return-disables-try-semantics.md — a different case where ignoring a Boolean return value changes behavior.