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>
1.4 KiB
| bc-version | domain | keywords | technologies | countries | application-area | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
performance |
|
|
|
|
Apply early-exit guards before calling Get
Description
A Get (or any other database call) executed before a guard that may exit the procedure does a round-trip the procedure never uses. Per the upstream guidance, "Flag Get() calls that execute before a guard condition that may exit early — the DB lookup is wasted." The fix is structural: order the procedure body so cheap checks (parameter validation, in-memory field comparisons, enum tests) run first, and the database call runs only after the guards pass.
Best Practice
Read the procedure top-to-bottom and place every condition that can short-circuit ahead of every database call. The check if SomeNo = '' then exit; belongs above Header.Get(...), not below. Each guard moved upward saves one wasted query on the path that exits.
See sample: apply-guards-before-get.good.al.
Anti Pattern
Record.Get(...) at the top of a procedure followed by if SomeField = '' then exit;. The code reads top-down as "load the record, then decide whether we needed it" — exactly the order that wastes the query. The pattern is easy to introduce when guards are added later, defensively, without re-checking call ordering.
See sample: apply-guards-before-get.bad.al.