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>
1.6 KiB
| bc-version | domain | keywords | technologies | countries | application-area | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
style |
|
|
|
|
A page or view name must describe the table it shows
Description
A page (or filtered page View) whose name references one entity but whose SourceTable is a different entity misleads every consumer of the object's metadata. A page named "Items with Negative Inventory" that sources "Stockkeeping Unit" looks like a list of items in the search bar and in role explorer, but presents stockkeeping-unit fields and behaviour. The fix is either to rename the page to match the source table — "Stockkeeping Units with Negative Inventory" — or to change the source table to the entity the name promises. The choice depends on which the actual users are asking for; the constraint is that the two MUST agree.
The rule extends to filtered Views declared inside a page: the View name should describe the filter applied to the page's existing source, not introduce a different entity.
Best Practice
Read the page name out loud and ask: "If a user typed this into the search bar, would they expect to see rows from <SourceTable>?" If the answer is no, rename one side or the other. The same check applies whenever the source table changes — the name has to follow.
Anti Pattern
page "Items with Negative Inventory" { SourceTable = "Stockkeeping Unit"; … }. The Tell-Don't-Ask name asserts items; the source contradicts it. Reviewers should flag every mismatch they spot, even when both sides "make sense individually" — they have to agree.