Microsoft MB-820 Bundle

“Validate dashboard queries when event schemas change” concerns the alternative task “use stable event identifiers and a controlled schema for emitted telemetry”, but the stated failure is that an extension is slow for some tenants but developer logs show no environment, operation or correlation context. The required measure is to review telemetry coverage after critical workflow changes.

The proposed “Track custom-event rates after major feature releases” tests a different control: use appropriate verbosity and targeted instrumentation for meaningful events. The reported condition is that an extension is slow for some tenants but developer logs show no environment, operation or correlation context; the more direct action is to review telemetry coverage after critical workflow changes.

“Alert on sustained failed-job counters” supports the separate task “emit safe failure signals and preserve actionable error outcomes in the job path”, not the reported problem: an extension is slow for some tenants but developer logs show no environment, operation or correlation context. This case instead calls for “Review telemetry coverage after critical workflow changes”.

“The release plan distinguishes Microsoft-managed platform updates from customer-managed extension releases” supports the separate task “assign extension code ownership and compatibility testing to the publisher while Microsoft maintains the online platform”, not the reported problem: a finance analyst proposes an on-premises .NET dependency for an app that must run in Business Central online. This case instead calls for “The extension deploys successfully to an online sandbox without a server-local .NET assembly”.

“An isolated-tenant test shows no unintended cross-tenant records and approved integration transfers only permitted data” concerns the separate step “design explicit authorized integration rather than assuming Business Central tenant databases share company data”. The reported issue is that a finance analyst proposes an on-premises .NET dependency for an app that must run in Business Central online, so the direct response is to the extension deploys successfully to an online sandbox without a server-local .NET assembly.

“The customization is deployed as an app without overwriting Microsoft's application objects” concerns the alternative task “design a separate AL extension that adds the required fields and logic through supported extensibility points”, but the stated failure is that a finance analyst proposes an on-premises .NET dependency for an app that must run in Business Central online. The required measure is to the extension deploys successfully to an online sandbox without a server-local .NET assembly.

“SaaS servicing does not transfer responsibility for third-party app quality” supports the separate task “assign extension code ownership and compatibility testing to the publisher while Microsoft maintains the online platform”, not the reported problem: a finance analyst proposes an on-premises .NET dependency for an app that must run in Business Central online. This case instead calls for “replace the server-specific”.

“Extension lifecycle planning must consider both publisher and platform version changes” concerns the alternative task “track the platform release cycle and qualify extension versions against available compatibility signals”, but the stated failure is that a finance analyst proposes an on-premises .NET dependency for an app that must run in Business Central online. The required measure is to replace the server-specific.

The proposed “Client presentation and application execution have distinct responsibilities” tests a different control: document how the browser client, service tier, AL extensions and managed data platform participate in operations. The reported condition is that a finance analyst proposes an on-premises .NET dependency for an app that must run in Business Central online; the more direct action is to replace the server-specific.

“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 finance analyst proposes an on-premises .NET dependency for an app that must run in Business Central online. The required measure is to replace the server-specific.

The proposed “Design a separate AL extension that adds the required fields and logic through supported extensibility points” tests a different control: design a separate AL extension that adds the required fields and logic through supported extensibility points. The reported condition is that a finance analyst proposes an on-premises .NET dependency for an app that must run in Business Central online; the more direct action is to replace the server-specific.

“Select supported Business Central capabilities and explicit service integrations for Microsoft 365 workflows” supports the separate task “select supported Business Central capabilities and explicit service integrations for Microsoft 365 workflows”, not the reported problem: a finance analyst proposes an on-premises .NET dependency for an app that must run in Business Central online. This case instead calls for “replace the server-specific”.

The proposed “Review object references and extension points for correct application layer ownership” tests a different control: use the System Application APIs for reusable system capabilities and extend the Base Application for business processes. The reported condition is that a finance analyst proposes an on-premises .NET dependency for an app that must run in Business Central online; the more direct action is to run online target and analyzer checks before accepting a technical design.

“Check app dependencies during every automated build and upgrade” supports the separate task “separate independently maintained capabilities into versioned extension apps with explicit dependencies”, not the reported problem: a finance analyst proposes an on-premises .NET dependency for an app that must run in Business Central online. This case instead calls for “Run online target and analyzer checks before accepting a technical design”.

“Review customization requests for unsupported base-object replacement” concerns the separate step “design a separate AL extension that adds the required fields and logic through supported extensibility points”. The reported issue is that a finance analyst proposes an on-premises .NET dependency for an app that must run in Business Central online, so the direct response is to run online target and analyzer checks before accepting a technical design.

The proposed “Define an appropriate FlowField with a CalcFormula and use CalcFields where required” tests a different control: define an appropriate FlowField with a CalcFormula and use CalcFields where required. The reported condition is that a product page field has correct data but the layout hides it from the intended user group; the more direct action is to add the field in the appropriate pageextension layout section and verify ApplicationArea and permissions.

“Separate list/read-only presentation from interactive document editing pages using supported page types” concerns the separate step “separate list/read-only presentation from interactive document editing pages using supported page types”. The reported issue is that a product page field has correct data but the layout hides it from the intended user group, so the direct response is to add the field in the appropriate pageextension layout section and verify ApplicationArea and permissions.

“Implement or extend an appropriate Role Center page/profile with relevant activities and actions” concerns the alternative task “implement or extend an appropriate Role Center page/profile with relevant activities and actions”, but the stated failure is that a product page field has correct data but the layout hides it from the intended user group. The required measure is to add the field in the appropriate pageextension layout section and verify ApplicationArea and permissions.

“Test new field defaults and historical record handling during upgrades” supports the separate task “use a compatible field design and controlled initialization that respects existing rows”, not the reported problem: a product page field has correct data but the layout hides it from the intended user group. This case instead calls for “Run role-based page rendering checks after UI updates”.

“Regression-test existing page actions after extension merge” concerns the separate step “use pageextension action modifications at a suitable existing placement”. The reported issue is that a product page field has correct data but the layout hides it from the intended user group, so the direct response is to run role-based page rendering checks after UI updates.

“Scan custom table fields for missing or incorrect classification” concerns the alternative task “set appropriate DataClassification properties on table fields and review their privacy meaning”, but the stated failure is that a product page field has correct data but the layout hides it from the intended user group. The required measure is to run role-based page rendering checks after UI updates.

“The UI supports header navigation and related line entry using the intended structure” concerns the separate step “select the proper Document page pattern and related subpage for line data”. The reported issue is that a product page field has correct data but the layout hides it from the intended user group, so the direct response is to the approved role sees the field in the expected group without replacing the base page.

“Field metadata correctly classifies personal identifiers for governance review” concerns the alternative task “set appropriate DataClassification properties on table fields and review their privacy meaning”, but the stated failure is that a product page field has correct data but the layout hides it from the intended user group. The required measure is to the approved role sees the field in the expected group without replacing the base page.

“The new enum value is recognized without modifying the base object's existing members” supports the separate task “use a supported extensible enum or enumextension where the target model allows extension”, not the reported problem: a product page field has correct data but the layout hides it from the intended user group. This case instead calls for “The approved role sees the field in the expected group without replacing the base page”.

The proposed “Extensible enums permit declared values across compatible app boundaries” tests a different control: use a supported extensible enum or enumextension where the target model allows extension. The reported condition is that a product page field has correct data but the layout hides it from the intended user group; the more direct action is to add the field in the appropriate pageextension layout section and verify ApplicationArea and permissions.

“Data model design includes privacy metadata as well as type and length” supports the separate task “set appropriate DataClassification properties on table fields and review their privacy meaning”, not the reported problem: a product page field has correct data but the layout hides it from the intended user group. This case instead calls for “add the field in the appropriate pageextension layout section and verify ApplicationArea and permissions”.

“Document interaction often requires parent/child page relationships” concerns the separate step “select the proper Document page pattern and related subpage for line data”. The reported issue is that a product page field has correct data but the layout hides it from the intended user group, so the direct response is to add the field in the appropriate pageextension layout section and verify ApplicationArea and permissions.

The proposed “Query join semantics determine cardinality and optional-record handling” tests a different control: define the DataItemLink and join type that match the intended relationship. The reported condition is that a query has an aggregation column but the grouping fields create one group per unique transaction; the more direct action is to review grouping columns and Sum/Count aggregation placement.

“Service exposure does not change a query into a transactional API” supports the separate task “document the query's read-only contract and choose an API page for supported mutations”, not the reported problem: a query has an aggregation column but the grouping fields create one group per unique transaction. This case instead calls for “review grouping columns and Sum/Count aggregation placement”.

“Query objects are not a replacement for transactional business APIs” concerns the separate step “use the query for read-oriented analysis and a suitable record/codeunit workflow for writes”. The reported issue is that a query has an aggregation column but the grouping fields create one group per unique transaction, so the direct response is to review grouping columns and Sum/Count aggregation placement.

“Use a query object with an appropriate aggregation method and grouping columns” supports the separate task “use a query object with an appropriate aggregation method and grouping columns”, not the reported problem: a query has an aggregation column but the grouping fields create one group per unique transaction. This case instead calls for “review grouping columns and Sum/Count aggregation placement”.

“Reevaluate grouping and totals when adding the dimension to the query projection” concerns the alternative task “reevaluate grouping and totals when adding the dimension to the query projection”, but the stated failure is that a query has an aggregation column but the grouping fields create one group per unique transaction. The required measure is to review grouping columns and Sum/Count aggregation placement.

The proposed “Apply a correct filter in the query or at the query execution boundary” tests a different control: apply a correct filter in the query or at the query execution boundary. The reported condition is that a query has an aggregation column but the grouping fields create one group per unique transaction; the more direct action is to review grouping columns and Sum/Count aggregation placement.