mirror of
https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality.git
synced 2026-08-06 17:36:53 +01:00
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>
28 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
28 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
bc-version: [all]
|
|
domain: ui
|
|
keywords: [style, cosmetic, attention, strong, subordinate, accessibility]
|
|
technologies: [al]
|
|
countries: [w1]
|
|
application-area: [all]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 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`, `Standard`
|
|
- `StandardAccent` (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.
|