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>
2 KiB
| bc-version | domain | keywords | technologies | countries | application-area | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
security |
|
|
|
|
Use indirect permissions when access must be code-mediated
Description
In a permissionset, uppercase letters (R, I, M, D) grant direct permissions: the assignee can read, insert, modify, or delete the table data through any UI or API surface. Lowercase letters (r, i, m, d) grant indirect permissions: the operation is allowed only when it is invoked from AL code that itself holds the corresponding direct permission. Indirect permissions let a role consume privileged tables through controlled procedures (a report, a posting routine) without giving users a way to read or change those tables outside the intended code path.
Best Practice
Use indirect permissions (ri, ii, mi, di) when a role needs access to a sensitive table only through a specific codeunit or report — for example, a "Report Runner" role that reads G/L Entry only via published reports. Pair the indirect grant with the codeunit or report that mediates access; that object's own permissions (or InherentPermissions) supply the direct rights. Document why indirect permissions are required in the permission set or in the consuming object's comments. See sample: indirect-permissions-for-elevated-access.good.al.
Anti Pattern
Granting RIMD on a sensitive table when the role only needs to view it through a report — for example tabledata "G/L Entry" = RIMD on a "Report Runner" role. Users assigned that role can now query and modify ledger entries directly through any client that respects the permission, bypassing the report entirely. Reviewers should look for uppercase grants on system-of-record tables (G/L Entry, ledger entries, posted documents) where the consuming code path is clearly read-through-report or read-through-API. See sample: indirect-permissions-for-elevated-access.bad.al.