Microsoft MB-820 Bundle

“Check AppSource compatibility and extension analyzer results before submission” supports the separate task “implement published tables, page extensions and event subscribers rather than distributing a modified base application”, not the reported problem: an extension package references a library app but omits the required dependency from app.json. This case instead calls for “Audit app.json dependency lists during release packaging”.

“Compare exported API surfaces at every version promotion” concerns the separate step “version public interfaces compatibly and review downstream dependency contracts before a breaking change”. The reported issue is that an extension package references a library app but omits the required dependency from app.json, so the direct response is to audit app.json dependency lists during release packaging.

The proposed “Run translation coverage review before each AppSource release” tests a different control: add language translation files and validate translatable properties for the supported locales. The reported condition is that an extension package references a library app but omits the required dependency from app.json; the more direct action is to audit app.json dependency lists during release packaging.

“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 extension package references a library app but omits the required dependency from app.json. The required measure is to declare the exact dependency identifier and compatible version constraints in the manifest.

The proposed “Distribution scope and validation obligations depend on app type” tests a different control: select a per-tenant deployment for tenant-specific use and an AppSource publishing workflow for marketplace distribution. The reported condition is that an extension package references a library app but omits the required dependency from app.json; the more direct action is to declare the exact dependency identifier and compatible version constraints in the manifest.

“Published extension interfaces are integration commitments” supports the separate task “version public interfaces compatibly and review downstream dependency contracts before a breaking change”, not the reported problem: an extension package references a library app but omits the required dependency from app.json. This case instead calls for “declare the exact dependency identifier and compatible version constraints in the manifest”.

The proposed “After an app lifecycle test, retained data and removal actions match the documented policy” tests a different control: document supported uninstall and delete-data behavior, preserve data as required and use deliberate cleanup procedures. The reported condition is that an extension package references a library app but omits the required dependency from app.json; the more direct action is to compilation and installation resolve the prerequisite app before loading dependent objects.

“Shared workflows run with both apps installed and no conflicting state transitions” supports the separate task “use documented extension points and define integration precedence, supported events and compatibility tests”, not the reported problem: an extension package references a library app but omits the required dependency from app.json. This case instead calls for “Compilation and installation resolve the prerequisite app before loading dependent objects”.

“The combined installation completes without duplicate object ID errors” concerns the separate step “allocate supported object ID ranges and check unique app identity and object conflicts”. The reported issue is that an extension package references a library app but omits the required dependency from app.json, so the direct response is to compilation and installation resolve the prerequisite app before loading dependent objects.

The proposed “The service role opens a purpose-built navigation surface without affecting accounting users” tests a different control: create an AL profile tied to an appropriate Role Center and assign it to the intended users. The reported condition is that a tutorial points at an action that was moved by a page extension and can no longer be found; the more direct action is to the guided tour locates the correct action in the target Role Center.

“The user opens the intended filtered record set with one selection” supports the separate task “provide a suitable list view or supported view customization for the role”, not the reported problem: a tutorial points at an action that was moved by a page extension and can no longer be found. This case instead calls for “The guided tour locates the correct action in the target Role Center”.

“Users understand the field's effect without learning AL implementation details” concerns the alternative task “write clear supported tooltips and user assistance strings reflecting business meaning”, but the stated failure is that a tutorial points at an action that was moved by a page extension and can no longer be found. The required measure is to the guided tour locates the correct action in the target Role Center.

“Checklists make first-run activities visible and actionable” concerns the separate step “create an onboarding checklist with required tasks and suitable launch destinations”. The reported issue is that a tutorial points at an action that was moved by a page extension and can no longer be found, so the direct response is to update the teaching tip or in-app tour anchors to current page controls.

“Localization extends to onboarding content beyond standard fields” concerns the alternative task “include user-assistance strings in the language resource review and translation workflow”, but the stated failure is that a tutorial points at an action that was moved by a page extension and can no longer be found. The required measure is to update the teaching tip or in-app tour anchors to current page controls.

The proposed “User assistance should explain outcomes rather than internals” tests a different control: write clear supported tooltips and user assistance strings reflecting business meaning. The reported condition is that a tutorial points at an action that was moved by a page extension and can no longer be found; the more direct action is to update the teaching tip or in-app tour anchors to current page controls.

“Review tooltips and teaching tips after workflow changes” concerns the separate step “add contextual user assistance or an appropriate teaching tip that explains the purpose and next step”. The reported issue is that a tutorial points at an action that was moved by a page extension and can no longer be found, so the direct response is to regression-test tours after page layout changes.

“Update checklist items when installation prerequisites change” concerns the alternative task “create an onboarding checklist with required tasks and suitable launch destinations”, but the stated failure is that a tutorial points at an action that was moved by a page extension and can no longer be found. The required measure is to regression-test tours after page layout changes.

“Revalidate saved views when underlying fields are renamed” supports the separate task “provide a suitable list view or supported view customization for the role”, not the reported problem: a tutorial points at an action that was moved by a page extension and can no longer be found. This case instead calls for “Regression-test tours after page layout changes”.

“Use an assisted setup flow with ordered steps, validation and completion state” concerns the alternative task “use an assisted setup flow with ordered steps, validation and completion state”, but the stated failure is that a tutorial points at an action that was moved by a page extension and can no longer be found. The required measure is to update the teaching tip or in-app tour anchors to current page controls.

The proposed “Name and configure supported views clearly and test switching behavior” tests a different control: name and configure supported views clearly and test switching behavior. The reported condition is that a tutorial points at an action that was moved by a page extension and can no longer be found; the more direct action is to update the teaching tip or in-app tour anchors to current page controls.

“Create an onboarding checklist with required tasks and suitable launch destinations” concerns the separate step “create an onboarding checklist with required tasks and suitable launch destinations”. The reported issue is that a tutorial points at an action that was moved by a page extension and can no longer be found, so the direct response is to update the teaching tip or in-app tour anchors to current page controls.

The proposed “Add the table-data rights to an appropriate permissionset or permissionsetextension” tests a different control: add the table-data rights to an appropriate permissionset or permissionsetextension. The reported condition is that a finance extension requires a service codeunit to update a protected table on behalf of a controlled workflow; the more direct action is to use documented permissions properties or least-privilege execution design where applicable.

“Enforce access using resource-side permission sets and protected code paths” supports the separate task “enforce access using resource-side permission sets and protected code paths”, not the reported problem: a finance extension requires a service codeunit to update a protected table on behalf of a controlled workflow. This case instead calls for “use documented permissions properties or least-privilege execution design where applicable”.

“Trim permissions to the exact object set and operations required for business tasks” concerns the alternative task “trim permissions to the exact object set and operations required for business tasks”, but the stated failure is that a finance extension requires a service codeunit to update a protected table on behalf of a controlled workflow. The required measure is to use documented permissions properties or least-privilege execution design where applicable.

“Least privilege limits blast radius from extensibility flaws” supports the separate task “trim permissions to the exact object set and operations required for business tasks”, not the reported problem: a finance extension requires a service codeunit to update a protected table on behalf of a controlled workflow. This case instead calls for “use documented permissions properties or least-privilege execution design where applicable”.

“UI visibility is not a security boundary” concerns the separate step “enforce access using resource-side permission sets and protected code paths”. The reported issue is that a finance extension requires a service codeunit to update a protected table on behalf of a controlled workflow, so the direct response is to use documented permissions properties or least-privilege execution design where applicable.

“Composite permissions may be broader than an individual set suggests” concerns the alternative task “inspect effective permissions and role composition, then remove or constrain excessive assignments”, but the stated failure is that a finance extension requires a service codeunit to update a protected table on behalf of a controlled workflow. The required measure is to use documented permissions properties or least-privilege execution design where applicable.

“Review entitlement-to-role effects when product packaging changes” concerns the separate step “model supported entitlements and application rights separately, testing their combined effect”. The reported issue is that a finance extension requires a service codeunit to update a protected table on behalf of a controlled workflow, so the direct response is to audit privileged codeunit entry points.

“Compare effective role grants before each release” concerns the alternative task “trim permissions to the exact object set and operations required for business tasks”, but the stated failure is that a finance extension requires a service codeunit to update a protected table on behalf of a controlled workflow. The required measure is to audit privileged codeunit entry points.

“Check permission drift with every new object declaration” supports the separate task “add the table-data rights to an appropriate permissionset or permissionsetextension”, not the reported problem: a finance extension requires a service codeunit to update a protected table on behalf of a controlled workflow. This case instead calls for “Audit privileged codeunit entry points”.

“Authorized users can perform required operations on the new table only” concerns the alternative task “add the table-data rights to an appropriate permissionset or permissionsetextension”, but the stated failure is that a finance extension requires a service codeunit to update a protected table on behalf of a controlled workflow. The required measure is to the codeunit performs only its approved operation without giving every caller broad table rights.

The proposed “Read succeeds and an attempted unauthorized write is denied” tests a different control: assign a role with read rights and no unauthorized edit permissions to the relevant table data. The reported condition is that a finance extension requires a service codeunit to update a protected table on behalf of a controlled workflow; the more direct action is to the codeunit performs only its approved operation without giving every caller broad table rights.

“Users with the intended license retain approved features while restricted capabilities remain unavailable” concerns the separate step “model supported entitlements and application rights separately, testing their combined effect”. The reported issue is that a finance extension requires a service codeunit to update a protected table on behalf of a controlled workflow, so the direct response is to the codeunit performs only its approved operation without giving every caller broad table rights.