mirror of
https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality.git
synced 2026-08-06 09:26:52 +01:00
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>
24 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
24 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
bc-version: [all]
|
|
domain: privacy
|
|
keywords: [privacy-notice-registrations, integration, register, exchange, onedrive, teams, notice-id]
|
|
technologies: [al]
|
|
countries: [w1]
|
|
application-area: [all]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 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.
|