mirror of
https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality.git
synced 2026-10-05 14:46:55 +01:00
07e324ddbc
Some checks failed
Validate knowledge index / validate-index (push) Has been cancelled
Validate AL review fixtures / validate-review-fixtures (push) Has been cancelled
Validate skill index and report schemas / validate-contract (push) Has been cancelled
Validate frontmatter and structure / validate (push) Has been cancelled
* Add Finance posting domain-knowledge pilot Adds three atomic domain-rule knowledge files under community/knowledge/finance/ as a pilot for Type-A (normative) Business Central domain knowledge: post through the posting engine, treat posted ledger entries as immutable, and treat the Dimension Set ID as the source of truth for dimensions. Includes a good/bad AL sample pair for the posting rule. These encode BC-specific invariants that LLMs reliably get wrong, fitting the existing remedial/atomic knowledge grain with no schema or contract changes. Passes the repo frontmatter validator and is discovered by the knowledge index. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Clarify editable operational fields on posted ledger entries Addresses review feedback from @JeremyVyska on PR #57: the immutability rule applies to financial content, not the whole entry. Reframes the Description around financial content and gives the operational-field exception (payment/application data, on-hold, applies-to, communication fields edited via CustEntry-Edit/VendEntry-Edit and the ledger entry pages) its own paragraph in Best Practice instead of understating it as a narrow set. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Expand Finance pilot into a source-verified review domain Move Finance knowledge to the Microsoft-owned layer, add nine scoped rules with eighteen AL samples, and register bounded Finance review with complete paired evaluation coverage. Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Fix Finance review applicability and ownership boundaries Remove application-area gating and later VAT-field dependencies, align dynamic shared conventions, separate SCM ownership, and keep journal examples focused on the intended invariant. Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Remove logo branding (#194) Co-authored-by: Jesper Schulz-Wedde <jesper.schulzwedde@microsoft.com> Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Add title and description to README * Add foundational AL developer knowledge (#195) Co-authored-by: Jesper Schulz-Wedde <jesper.schulzwedde@microsoft.com> Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Clarify locale-safe DateFormula Evaluate inputs (#193) * Clarify locale-safe DateFormula Evaluate inputs Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Normalize DateFormula article sections Keep the analyzer-gap explanation in Description and its scoped probe evidence in References, without a novel Validation section. Normative guidance and fixtures are unchanged. Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Jesper Schulz-Wedde <jesper.schulzwedde@microsoft.com> Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Add SCM functional knowledge domain (#192) * Add SCM functional knowledge domain Introduce nine source-backed rules with original AL sample pairs, bounded SCM review routing, and complete positive/clean evaluation coverage. Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Normalize SCM knowledge and review ownership Align article and AL sample conventions, keep BC facts separate from review mechanics, and clarify reciprocal Finance ownership without bespoke shared test assertions. Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Jesper Schulz-Wedde <jesper.schulzwedde@microsoft.com> Co-authored-by: Copilot App <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Jesper Schulz-Wedde <jesper.schulzwedde@microsoft.com> Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
35 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
35 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
bc-version: [all]
|
|
domain: finance
|
|
keywords: [due-date, initial-entry-due-date, cust-entry-edit, vend-entry-edit, detailed-ledger-entry, aging]
|
|
technologies: [al]
|
|
countries: [w1]
|
|
application-area: [all]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Change posted customer/vendor due dates through the entry-edit workflow
|
|
|
|
## Description
|
|
|
|
A posted customer or vendor due date is supported editable operational data, but it is also represented by `Initial Entry Due Date` on related detailed ledger entries. Validating `Due Date` and calling `Modify(true)` on the main entry does not perform all synchronization done by `"Cust. Entry-Edit"` or `"Vend. Entry-Edit"`. The main entry and due-date-based analysis can otherwise disagree.
|
|
|
|
## Best Practice
|
|
|
|
Fetch the existing entry, validate the proposed `Due Date`, and pass the changed record to the corresponding entry-edit codeunit, as the standard ledger pages do. Field validation enforces entry-state rules; the editor persists the supported change and synchronizes related detailed entries. Preserve both steps rather than treating table triggers as equivalent to the edit workflow.
|
|
|
|
This is a due-date synchronization rule, not a prohibition on all operational edits after posting. Exclude temporary buffers, extension-only fields, supported editor internals, and code that demonstrably performs the equivalent synchronization under the supported workflow. Check the actual table/routine instead of assuming every `*Entry-Edit` accepts the same fields.
|
|
|
|
See sample: [`change-ledger-due-dates-through-entry-edit.good.al`](change-ledger-due-dates-through-entry-edit.good.al).
|
|
|
|
## Anti Pattern
|
|
|
|
Change `Due Date` on an existing non-temporary `Cust. Ledger Entry` or `Vendor Ledger Entry` and persist it with `Modify`, `Modify(true)`, or `ModifyAll` without the edit workflow or equivalent related-entry update. A preceding `Validate("Due Date", ...)` is not sufficient evidence of synchronization.
|
|
|
|
See sample: [`change-ledger-due-dates-through-entry-edit.bad.al`](change-ledger-due-dates-through-entry-edit.bad.al).
|
|
|
|
## References
|
|
|
|
- [Cust. Entry-Edit API](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics365/business-central/application/base-application/codeunit/microsoft.sales.receivables.cust.-entry-edit).
|
|
- [Vend. Entry-Edit API](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics365/business-central/application/base-application/codeunit/microsoft.purchases.payables.vend.-entry-edit).
|
|
- [BCApps: customer due-date synchronization](https://github.com/microsoft/BCApps/blob/8f7a04cb0db8aa96cb97e055c45c61aead49e280/src/Layers/W1/BaseApp/Sales/Receivables/CustEntryEdit.Codeunit.al).
|
|
- [BCApps: vendor due-date synchronization](https://github.com/microsoft/BCApps/blob/8f7a04cb0db8aa96cb97e055c45c61aead49e280/src/Layers/W1/BaseApp/Purchases/Payables/VendEntryEdit.Codeunit.al).
|