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>
1.5 KiB
| bc-version | domain | keywords | technologies | countries | application-area | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
privacy |
|
|
|
|
Register every new external integration with Privacy Notice Registrations
Description
Codeunit "Privacy Notice Registrations" is the registry of integrations whose consent state the platform tracks. Built-in integrations such as Exchange, OneDrive and Teams already have notice IDs exposed via accessor methods on this codeunit (GetExchangePrivacyNoticeId, etc.); a new integration introduced by an extension must add itself to the registry so that the admin can grant or withhold consent on the Privacy Notices Status page. Without registration, there is nothing for Codeunit "Privacy Notice" to return an approval state for — the call cannot meaningfully gate the outbound request.
Best Practice
When introducing a new outbound integration: pick a stable notice ID, register it via Privacy Notice Registrations, and then gate every outbound call with PrivacyNotice.GetPrivacyNoticeApprovalState(<that id>) as described in privacy-notice-consent-for-external-data-transfer.md.
See sample: register-integration-in-privacy-notice-registrations.good.al.
Anti Pattern
Shipping a new outbound integration without registering it. Even if the code calls GetPrivacyNoticeApprovalState, the admin has no surface to express consent — the integration is effectively unmanaged from a privacy-notice standpoint.