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>
1.3 KiB
| bc-version | domain | keywords | technologies | countries | application-area | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
style |
|
|
|
|
case action goes on the line after the possibility
Description
In an AL case statement, the action for each label is written on the line that follows the label, not on the same line. 'A': Letter2 := '10'; on a single line is the discouraged form; the convention is 'A': on one line and Letter2 := '10'; on the next, indented one level deeper. The exception is when the action is a begin … end block — there the begin follows the colon on the same line, consistent with the rule for then begin / else begin / do begin.
Best Practice
Each case label sits on its own line, terminated by :. The action below it is indented; multi-statement actions open with begin on the label line and close with end; on its own line.
See sample: case-action-on-line-after-possibility.good.al.
Anti Pattern
'A': Letter2 := '10'; (single-line label and action), and 'C': begin Letter2 := '12'; DoSomething(); end; (everything on one line including the block body). Both defeat per-line diff review and crowd the control flow.
See sample: case-action-on-line-after-possibility.bad.al.