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 |
|
|
|
|
In data migration code, classify the destination — not the migration itself
Description
Migration codeunits such as HybridSL, HybridGP, and HybridBC exist to copy sensitive data — TINs, Federal IDs, social security numbers, financial records — from a source system into Business Central. The fact that PII flows through these codeunits is the entire point of their existence, not a defect. The privacy concern is whether the destination field where the data lands carries the correct DataClassification. If it does, the migration is doing its job; if it doesn't, the right fix is on the destination table field, never on the migration code that writes to it.
Best Practice
When reviewing a migration codeunit, trace each Dest."<Field>" := Source."<Field>" assignment to the destination field's DataClassification. Confirm that fields receiving PII (SSNs, Federal IDs, customer names, addresses) are classified EndUserIdentifiableInformation or CustomerContent as appropriate — and not left as SystemMetadata or ToBeClassified.
Anti Pattern
Flagging the migration code itself for "processing sensitive data" or recommending that it filter, hash, or skip PII fields — these tables exist to migrate that data. The actionable finding is always on the destination field's classification, not on the migration's assignment statement.