mirror of
https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality.git
synced 2026-10-06 23:26:55 +01:00
eb9cae0af4
- activate-new-price-calculation-handler-via-onfindsupportedsetup: Default := true is required only for the fallback branch of PriceCalculationMgt's two-stage FindSetup - a handler reachable via a specific Dtld. Price Calculation Setup row needs no Default. Softened the article and its worklist cue accordingly. Also fixed an undefined "Sample Price Calc - Special" codeunit referenced but never declared in the eval fixtures - added a real implementation of interface "Price Calculation" with stub methods. - new-price-source-must-add-candidate-and-trigger-recalculation: the good fixture called UpdateUnitPriceByField directly, which is a silent no-op without a prior PlanPriceCalcByField call (FieldCausedPriceCalculation gating, verified against SalesLine.Table.al). Switched to the public UpdateUnitPrice wrapper, matching real BCApps usage in ItemReferenceManagement.Codeunit.al. - report-barcodes-must-use-barcode-module-and-production-font-name: split the 1D (ValidateInput + EncodeFont) and 2D (EncodeFont only) Barcode Font Provider interfaces, which the article previously conflated. Reframed the Code 39 anti-pattern around demonstrable encoding/checksum mismatch (verified against IDA1DCode39Encoder.Codeunit.al's real '(value)' output) rather than rejecting all manual delimiter use, since '*' is a legitimate Code 39 start/stop character. Also fixed extend-find-entries-navigate- for-new-document-types' eval fixtures, which referenced an undefined "Sample Posted Document Header" table/page - declared both. All claims re-verified against live microsoft/BCApps source. Validators: frontmatter 0/0, review-fixtures 126/20 domains PASSED, knowledge-index 342/575 PASSED, skill-index 19 leaves PASSED. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
100 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
100 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
bc-version: [all]
|
|
domain: data-modeling
|
|
keywords: [barcode, qr-code, barcode-font-provider, barcode-font-provider-2d, report-layout, saas, idautomation, code-39, checksum]
|
|
technologies: [al]
|
|
countries: [w1]
|
|
application-area: [all]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Generate report barcodes through the Barcode module, with the production font name
|
|
|
|
## Description
|
|
|
|
Business Central's barcode support lives in the System Application's
|
|
`Barcode` module (`src/System Application/App/Barcode`): `interface
|
|
"Barcode Font Provider"` / `"Barcode Font Provider 2D"`, `enum "Barcode
|
|
Symbology"` / `"Barcode Symbology 2D"`, and built-in implementations
|
|
(`codeunit 9215`/`9221`). A report encodes a data string via this API;
|
|
the layout then displays it using a barcode *font*.
|
|
|
|
The two interfaces are not symmetric: `"Barcode Font Provider"` (1D)
|
|
declares both `ValidateInput` and `EncodeFont`; `"Barcode Font Provider
|
|
2D"` declares only `EncodeFont` (see Source). BCApps' `Item GTIN Label`
|
|
report reflects that split exactly — it validates then encodes through
|
|
the 1D provider, but only encodes through the 2D provider, for the same
|
|
"No." value.
|
|
|
|
On Business Central online this needs no setup ("the IDAutomation fonts
|
|
are automatically available as part of the service" — Microsoft Learn),
|
|
unlike on-premises, where fonts must be purchased and installed. That
|
|
ease hides a SaaS-specific trap the API doesn't cover: naming the actual
|
|
font. IDAutomation ships both a purchased font and a same-looking
|
|
evaluation font per version (Code 39: `IDAutomationHC39M` purchased vs.
|
|
`IDAutomationSHC39M Demo`) — per Microsoft Learn, "be sure to use the
|
|
purchased font name... If you use the evaluation font name, the barcode
|
|
won't render." The wrong name produces nothing, in the layout not AL, so
|
|
no reviewer catches it reading the object.
|
|
|
|
## Best Practice
|
|
|
|
Encode through the real API, matching the calls to what the chosen
|
|
interface actually declares. One-dimensional: declare `Interface
|
|
"Barcode Font Provider"` and call both `ValidateInput` and `EncodeFont`
|
|
— skipping validation lets a value outside the character set, or one
|
|
needing a checksum setting never applied, reach the font unchecked.
|
|
Two-dimensional: declare `Interface "Barcode Font Provider 2D"` and call
|
|
`EncodeFont` alone — there is no `ValidateInput` on this interface.
|
|
|
|
Treat naming the production font in the layout as equally required, not
|
|
an afterthought. Two-dimensional symbologies other than Maxicode use
|
|
`IDAutomation2D` (Maxicode: `IDAutomation2D MaxiCode`); one-dimensional
|
|
symbologies use the purchased version name (e.g. `IDAutomationHC39M` for
|
|
Code 39), never a name containing `Demo`.
|
|
|
|
See sample: [`report-barcodes-must-use-barcode-module-and-production-font-name.good.al`](report-barcodes-must-use-barcode-module-and-production-font-name.good.al).
|
|
|
|
## Anti Pattern
|
|
|
|
Constructing a barcode string by hand instead of using the module's
|
|
provider/encoder API — not because a manual delimiter is inherently
|
|
wrong (Code 39's own symbology does use `*` as start/stop; Microsoft
|
|
Learn's font table says so), but because hand-rolled construction is
|
|
demonstrably mismatched with what the real encoder produces: it skips
|
|
`ValidateInput` (so a value outside the character set, or needing a
|
|
checksum/extended-charset setting never applied, reaches the font
|
|
unvalidated), and IDAutomation 1D Provider's own Code 39 output is
|
|
wrapped in `(`/`)`, not literal `*` (BCApps test:
|
|
`EncodeFont('1234', Code39) = '(1234)'`) — the paired font maps those
|
|
parentheses to the real start/stop glyph, so `'*' + value + '*'` is
|
|
simply the wrong characters, plus no checksum.
|
|
|
|
Flag demonstrably invalid or mismatched hand construction, not manual
|
|
delimiter use as a category — a custom provider paired with a font that
|
|
genuinely expects literal `*` delimiters is a different, legitimate case.
|
|
|
|
A second version of the same mistake: encoding correctly, but naming the
|
|
evaluation font instead of the purchased one. Both look complete in
|
|
review and fail silently — the first because the data was never a real
|
|
barcode, the second because BC online refuses to render it.
|
|
|
|
See sample: [`report-barcodes-must-use-barcode-module-and-production-font-name.bad.al`](report-barcodes-must-use-barcode-module-and-production-font-name.bad.al).
|
|
|
|
## Source
|
|
|
|
BCApps (`src/System Application/App/Barcode/src/`):
|
|
`Barcode Provider/Font/BarcodeFontProvider.Interface.al` (1D:
|
|
`ValidateInput` + `EncodeFont`); `Barcode Provider 2D/Font/
|
|
BarcodeFontProvider2D.Interface.al` (2D: only `EncodeFont`); both read
|
|
fresh from source. `IDAutomation 1D Provider/Encoders/
|
|
IDA1DCode39Encoder.Codeunit.al` (`codeunit 9204`, regex accepts literal
|
|
`*` as plain input; `EncodeFont` → `DotNet FontEncoder.Code39`). Split
|
|
and delimiter mismatch both confirmed live: `.../Inventory/Item/
|
|
ItemGTINLabel.Report.al` (`report 6625`, validates+encodes 1D, only
|
|
encodes 2D, same value) and `.../Test/Barcode/.../IDA1DCode39Test.
|
|
Codeunit.al` (`codeunit 135044`): `EncodeFontSuccessTest('1234', Code39,
|
|
'(1234)')` — wrapped in `(`/`)`, never literal `*`.
|
|
|
|
Microsoft Learn "Adding Barcodes to Reports" and "Barcode Fonts with
|
|
Business Central Online" — quoted above, incl. the Code39 row ("`*` is
|
|
used for both start and stop delimiters").
|