Microsoft MB-820 Bundle

“Assess deployment-specific restrictions and select cloud-compatible APIs when SaaS must be supported” concerns the alternative task “assess deployment-specific restrictions and select cloud-compatible APIs when SaaS must be supported”, but the stated failure is that a manufacturing tenant has developed one large custom application containing functions with incompatible release cycles. The required measure is to separate independently maintained capabilities into versioned extension apps with explicit dependencies.

“Design explicit authorized integration rather than assuming Business Central tenant databases share company data” supports the separate task “design explicit authorized integration rather than assuming Business Central tenant databases share company data”, not the reported problem: a manufacturing tenant has developed one large custom application containing functions with incompatible release cycles. This case instead calls for “separate independently maintained capabilities into versioned extension apps with explicit dependencies”.

“Replace the server-specific .NET dependency with supported AL or external service integration appropriate to cloud execution” concerns the separate step “replace the server-specific .NET dependency with supported AL or external service integration appropriate to cloud execution”. The reported issue is that a manufacturing tenant has developed one large custom application containing functions with incompatible release cycles, so the direct response is to separate independently maintained capabilities into versioned extension apps with explicit dependencies.

“Localization is part of application packaging and usability” supports the separate task “add language translation files and validate translatable properties for the supported locales”, not the reported problem: an ISV submits an app that passes local compilation but fails marketplace validation for unsupported patterns. This case instead calls for “run the appropriate AppSourceCop and code analysis gates against the target runtime”.

“Marketplace apps are packaged extensions rather than private forks of Microsoft source” concerns the separate step “implement published tables, page extensions and event subscribers rather than distributing a modified base application”. The reported issue is that an ISV submits an app that passes local compilation but fails marketplace validation for unsupported patterns, so the direct response is to run the appropriate AppSourceCop and code analysis gates against the target runtime.

“An extension's activation state is distinct from irreversible data deletion” concerns the alternative task “document supported uninstall and delete-data behavior, preserve data as required and use deliberate cleanup procedures”, but the stated failure is that an ISV submits an app that passes local compilation but fails marketplace validation for unsupported patterns. The required measure is to run the appropriate AppSourceCop and code analysis gates against the target runtime.

“Add language translation files and validate translatable properties for the supported locales” supports the separate task “add language translation files and validate translatable properties for the supported locales”, not the reported problem: an ISV submits an app that passes local compilation but fails marketplace validation for unsupported patterns. This case instead calls for “run the appropriate AppSourceCop and code analysis gates against the target runtime”.

“Use documented extension points and define integration precedence, supported events and compatibility tests” concerns the separate step “use documented extension points and define integration precedence, supported events and compatibility tests”. The reported issue is that an ISV submits an app that passes local compilation but fails marketplace validation for unsupported patterns, so the direct response is to run the appropriate AppSourceCop and code analysis gates against the target runtime.

The proposed “Allocate supported object ID ranges and check unique app identity and object conflicts” tests a different control: allocate supported object ID ranges and check unique app identity and object conflicts. The reported condition is that an ISV submits an app that passes local compilation but fails marketplace validation for unsupported patterns; the more direct action is to run the appropriate AppSourceCop and code analysis gates against the target runtime.

“Check ID conflicts against declared installed dependencies” concerns the alternative task “allocate supported object ID ranges and check unique app identity and object conflicts”, but the stated failure is that an ISV submits an app that passes local compilation but fails marketplace validation for unsupported patterns. The required measure is to run marketplace-specific checks in CI before submitting a release.

The proposed “Check AppSource compatibility and extension analyzer results before submission” tests a different control: implement published tables, page extensions and event subscribers rather than distributing a modified base application. The reported condition is that an ISV submits an app that passes local compilation but fails marketplace validation for unsupported patterns; the more direct action is to run marketplace-specific checks in CI before submitting a release.

“Compare exported API surfaces at every version promotion” supports the separate task “version public interfaces compatibly and review downstream dependency contracts before a breaking change”, not the reported problem: an ISV submits an app that passes local compilation but fails marketplace validation for unsupported patterns. This case instead calls for “Run marketplace-specific checks in CI before submitting a release”.

“The extension passes compatibility tests while the base application remains independently updatable” concerns the alternative task “implement published tables, page extensions and event subscribers rather than distributing a modified base application”, but the stated failure is that an ISV submits an app that passes local compilation but fails marketplace validation for unsupported patterns. The required measure is to the submitted artifact satisfies supported checks without requiring manual bypasses.

The proposed “Shared workflows run with both apps installed and no conflicting state transitions” tests a different control: use documented extension points and define integration precedence, supported events and compatibility tests. The reported condition is that an ISV submits an app that passes local compilation but fails marketplace validation for unsupported patterns; the more direct action is to the submitted artifact satisfies supported checks without requiring manual bypasses.

“The intended customers can install the app through the chosen supported delivery channel” concerns the separate step “select a per-tenant deployment for tenant-specific use and an AppSource publishing workflow for marketplace distribution”. The reported issue is that an ISV submits an app that passes local compilation but fails marketplace validation for unsupported patterns, so the direct response is to the submitted artifact satisfies supported checks without requiring manual bypasses.

The proposed “Implement or expose an appropriate supported bound/unbound action that invokes validated posting logic” tests a different control: implement or expose an appropriate supported bound/unbound action that invokes validated posting logic. The reported condition is that a developer changes a published API's entity set name without informing dependent Power Automate flows; the more direct action is to preserve compatible contracts or introduce a deliberate versioned API and migration path.

“Expose only the minimal approved fields and apply entitlement and permission rules” supports the separate task “expose only the minimal approved fields and apply entitlement and permission rules”, not the reported problem: a developer changes a published API's entity set name without informing dependent Power Automate flows. This case instead calls for “preserve compatible contracts or introduce a deliberate versioned API and migration path”.

“Design appropriate API page parts or supported related entity navigation with stable keys” concerns the alternative task “design appropriate API page parts or supported related entity navigation with stable keys”, but the stated failure is that a developer changes a published API's entity set name without informing dependent Power Automate flows. The required measure is to preserve compatible contracts or introduce a deliberate versioned API and migration path.

“Run negative authorization tests against API endpoints” supports the separate task “expose only approved actions and enforce permissions and validation at the service boundary”, not the reported problem: a developer changes a published API's entity set name without informing dependent Power Automate flows. This case instead calls for “Diff published schemas before deployment”.

“Test data freshness and consistency assumptions before enabling read scale-out” concerns the separate step “evaluate supported read scale-out patterns for appropriate read workloads without compromising consistency needs”. The reported issue is that a developer changes a published API's entity set name without informing dependent Power Automate flows, so the direct response is to diff published schemas before deployment.

The proposed “Check supported API object capabilities before planning extensions” tests a different control: publish a compatible new API contract or supported API page design rather than assuming API page extension is available. The reported condition is that a developer changes a published API's entity set name without informing dependent Power Automate flows; the more direct action is to diff published schemas before deployment.

“Business Central API extensibility has object-type boundaries” concerns the alternative task “publish a compatible new API contract or supported API page design rather than assuming API page extension is available”, but the stated failure is that a developer changes a published API's entity set name without informing dependent Power Automate flows. The required measure is to preserve compatible contracts or introduce a deliberate versioned API and migration path.

The proposed “API relational contracts must preserve entity identity and relationships” tests a different control: design appropriate API page parts or supported related entity navigation with stable keys. The reported condition is that a developer changes a published API's entity set name without informing dependent Power Automate flows; the more direct action is to preserve compatible contracts or introduce a deliberate versioned API and migration path.

“Reliable APIs must account for retries and ambiguous response outcomes” supports the separate task “define idempotency and stable external reference handling in the API-backed business process”, not the reported problem: a developer changes a published API's entity set name without informing dependent Power Automate flows. This case instead calls for “preserve compatible contracts or introduce a deliberate versioned API and migration path”.

“A repeated request does not create duplicate shipments” concerns the alternative task “define idempotency and stable external reference handling in the API-backed business process”, but the stated failure is that a developer changes a published API's entity set name without informing dependent Power Automate flows. The required measure is to existing integrations keep working until consumers opt into the new version.

The proposed “Unauthorized requests are denied even when callers know the endpoint URL” tests a different control: expose only approved actions and enforce permissions and validation at the service boundary. The reported condition is that a developer changes a published API's entity set name without informing dependent Power Automate flows; the more direct action is to existing integrations keep working until consumers opt into the new version.

“The consumer sees a documented field in the supported API version” concerns the separate step “publish a compatible new API contract or supported API page design rather than assuming API page extension is available”. The reported issue is that a developer changes a published API's entity set name without informing dependent Power Automate flows, so the direct response is to existing integrations keep working until consumers opt into the new version.

The proposed “Test inserts and updates through each supported integration route” tests a different control: call the appropriate validation mechanism when business rules must run during programmatic updates. The reported condition is that an extension copies a vendor codeunit to change one hook and then misses future bug fixes; the more direct action is to review deprecated or changed events during upgrades.

“Test all business entry points for the rule” concerns the separate step “subscribe to an appropriate published business event or design a reusable codeunit validation at the relevant process boundary”. The reported issue is that an extension copies a vendor codeunit to change one hook and then misses future bug fixes, so the direct response is to review deprecated or changed events during upgrades.

“Use unit tests to detect divergent calculation paths” concerns the alternative task “move reusable logic to an appropriate codeunit and call it through a stable interface”, but the stated failure is that an extension copies a vendor codeunit to change one hook and then misses future bug fixes. The required measure is to review deprecated or changed events during upgrades.

“Codeunits encapsulate reusable AL behavior” supports the separate task “move reusable logic to an appropriate codeunit and call it through a stable interface”, not the reported problem: an extension copies a vendor codeunit to change one hook and then misses future bug fixes. This case instead calls for “use available integration events and a subscriber or suitable extension point”.

“Transaction control must respect business process atomicity” concerns the separate step “review transaction boundaries and remove unintended commits from reusable business logic”. The reported issue is that an extension copies a vendor codeunit to change one hook and then misses future bug fixes, so the direct response is to use available integration events and a subscriber or suitable extension point.

“App installation and data upgrade are different lifecycle events” concerns the alternative task “use distinct Install and Upgrade codeunits, implementing the appropriate lifecycle triggers”, but the stated failure is that an extension copies a vendor codeunit to change one hook and then misses future bug fixes. The required measure is to use available integration events and a subscriber or suitable extension point.