Microsoft MB-820 Bundle

“Run marketplace-specific checks in CI before submitting a release” supports the separate task “run the appropriate AppSourceCop and code analysis gates against the target runtime”, not the reported problem: a customer confuses a per-tenant extension with a universally distributed AppSource app. This case instead calls for “Record intended release channel before approving an app ID range and package”.

“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 a customer confuses a per-tenant extension with a universally distributed AppSource app, so the direct response is to record intended release channel before approving an app ID range and package.

The proposed “Review dependency direction when introducing shared utility code” tests a different control: use an appropriate System Application API or a distinct reusable extension module. The reported condition is that a customer confuses a per-tenant extension with a universally distributed AppSource app; the more direct action is to record intended release channel before approving an app ID range and package.

“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 a customer confuses a per-tenant extension with a universally distributed AppSource app. The required measure is to the intended customers can install the app through the chosen supported delivery channel.

The proposed “The helper can be reused across unrelated business extensions with an explicit dependency” tests a different control: use an appropriate System Application API or a distinct reusable extension module. The reported condition is that a customer confuses a per-tenant extension with a universally distributed AppSource app; the more direct action is to the intended customers can install the app through the chosen supported delivery channel.

“The combined installation completes without duplicate object ID errors” supports the separate task “allocate supported object ID ranges and check unique app identity and object conflicts”, not the reported problem: a customer confuses a per-tenant extension with a universally distributed AppSource app. This case instead calls for “The intended customers can install the app through the chosen supported delivery channel”.

“Compiler success alone is not marketplace certification” concerns the alternative task “run the appropriate AppSourceCop and code analysis gates against the target runtime”, but the stated failure is that a customer confuses a per-tenant extension with a universally distributed AppSource app. The required measure is to select a per-tenant deployment for tenant-specific use and an AppSource publishing workflow for marketplace distribution.

The proposed “An extension's activation state is distinct from irreversible data deletion” 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 a customer confuses a per-tenant extension with a universally distributed AppSource app; the more direct action is to select a per-tenant deployment for tenant-specific use and an AppSource publishing workflow for marketplace distribution.

“System-level services and business document schemas should not be conflated” supports the separate task “use an appropriate System Application API or a distinct reusable extension module”, not the reported problem: a customer confuses a per-tenant extension with a universally distributed AppSource app. This case instead calls for “select a per-tenant deployment for tenant-specific use and an AppSource publishing workflow for marketplace distribution”.

“Debugging does not constitute an extension rollback mechanism” supports the separate task “separate debugger lifecycle from extension publish, install and uninstall procedures”, not the reported problem: an extension executes correctly with breakpoints locally but cannot be debugged in the configured sandbox. This case instead calls for “use supported VS Code AL launch or attach debugging with a matching sandbox and symbols”.

“Controlled deployment should promote tested artifacts rather than unverified rebuilds” concerns the separate step “promote a versioned extension artifact through sandbox acceptance before production deployment”. The reported issue is that an extension executes correctly with breakpoints locally but cannot be debugged in the configured sandbox, so the direct response is to use supported VS Code AL launch or attach debugging with a matching sandbox and symbols.

“User-facing text belongs in localizable resources” concerns the alternative task “use AL labels and language translation resources rather than embedding UI messages as literals”, but the stated failure is that an extension executes correctly with breakpoints locally but cannot be debugged in the configured sandbox. The required measure is to use supported VS Code AL launch or attach debugging with a matching sandbox and symbols.

“The extension's installed version reflects the new artifact and data remains consistent” supports the separate task “increment the extension version and follow the supported package publish/upgrade path”, not the reported problem: an extension executes correctly with breakpoints locally but cannot be debugged in the configured sandbox. This case instead calls for “A breakpoint is hit in the relevant AL trigger and the correct session is identified”.

“The extension installs after prerequisites are present and the dependency graph resolves” concerns the separate step “publish and install compatible dependencies before the dependent .app file”. The reported issue is that an extension executes correctly with breakpoints locally but cannot be debugged in the configured sandbox, so the direct response is to a breakpoint is hit in the relevant AL trigger and the correct session is identified.

The proposed “The production package hash matches the artifact that passed tests” tests a different control: promote a versioned extension artifact through sandbox acceptance before production deployment. The reported condition is that an extension executes correctly with breakpoints locally but cannot be debugged in the configured sandbox; the more direct action is to a breakpoint is hit in the relevant AL trigger and the correct session is identified.

“Use a versioned upgrade codeunit and preserve/migrate existing records before using the new schema” concerns the separate step “use a versioned upgrade codeunit and preserve/migrate existing records before using the new schema”. The reported issue is that an extension executes correctly with breakpoints locally but cannot be debugged in the configured sandbox, so the direct response is to use supported VS Code AL launch or attach debugging with a matching sandbox and symbols.

“Separate publish, synchronize, install or upgrade and validation stages with explicit failure reporting” concerns the alternative task “separate publish, synchronize, install or upgrade and validation stages with explicit failure reporting”, but the stated failure is that an extension executes correctly with breakpoints locally but cannot be debugged in the configured sandbox. The required measure is to use supported VS Code AL launch or attach debugging with a matching sandbox and symbols.

“Publish and install compatible dependencies before the dependent .app file” supports the separate task “publish and install compatible dependencies before the dependent .app file”, not the reported problem: an extension executes correctly with breakpoints locally but cannot be debugged in the configured sandbox. This case instead calls for “use supported VS Code AL launch or attach debugging with a matching sandbox and symbols”.

“Verify dependency status in deployment pipeline gates” concerns the alternative task “publish and install compatible dependencies before the dependent .app file”, but the stated failure is that an extension executes correctly with breakpoints locally but cannot be debugged in the configured sandbox. The required measure is to include reproducible debug profiles in developer handoffs.

The proposed “Gate completion on installed version and smoke-test results” tests a different control: separate publish, synchronize, install or upgrade and validation stages with explicit failure reporting. The reported condition is that an extension executes correctly with breakpoints locally but cannot be debugged in the configured sandbox; the more direct action is to include reproducible debug profiles in developer handoffs.

“Compare package version metadata against deployment records” concerns the separate step “increment the extension version and follow the supported package publish/upgrade path”. The reported issue is that an extension executes correctly with breakpoints locally but cannot be debugged in the configured sandbox, so the direct response is to include reproducible debug profiles in developer handoffs.

The proposed “Set an appropriate request timeout and implement a bounded failure path or asynchronous design where needed” tests a different control: set an appropriate request timeout and implement a bounded failure path or asynchronous design where needed. The reported condition is that a supplier API requires JSON content but the AL request transmits plain text with the wrong media type; the more direct action is to build a JsonObject/JsonToken payload and set the appropriate content headers.

“Inspect JSON token types and iterate JsonArray elements using supported AL JSON APIs” concerns the separate step “inspect JSON token types and iterate JsonArray elements using supported AL JSON APIs”. The reported issue is that a supplier API requires JSON content but the AL request transmits plain text with the wrong media type, so the direct response is to build a JsonObject/JsonToken payload and set the appropriate content headers.

“Implement bounded retries honoring appropriate rate-limit signals and business operation idempotency” concerns the alternative task “implement bounded retries honoring appropriate rate-limit signals and business operation idempotency”, but the stated failure is that a supplier API requires JSON content but the AL request transmits plain text with the wrong media type. The required measure is to build a JsonObject/JsonToken payload and set the appropriate content headers.

“External service latency must not create unbounded transactional dependency” supports the separate task “set an appropriate request timeout and implement a bounded failure path or asynchronous design where needed”, not the reported problem: a supplier API requires JSON content but the AL request transmits plain text with the wrong media type. This case instead calls for “build a JsonObject/JsonToken payload and set the appropriate content headers”.

“JSON object and array types are distinct structural contracts” concerns the alternative task “inspect JSON token types and iterate JsonArray elements using supported AL JSON APIs”, but the stated failure is that a supplier API requires JSON content but the AL request transmits plain text with the wrong media type. The required measure is to build a JsonObject/JsonToken payload and set the appropriate content headers.

The proposed “Rate limiting and idempotent retries are integration reliability concerns” tests a different control: implement bounded retries honoring appropriate rate-limit signals and business operation idempotency. The reported condition is that a supplier API requires JSON content but the AL request transmits plain text with the wrong media type; the more direct action is to build a JsonObject/JsonToken payload and set the appropriate content headers.

“Verify headers with a controlled mock endpoint” concerns the separate step “configure the required request headers and validated HTTP method before calling”. The reported issue is that a supplier API requires JSON content but the AL request transmits plain text with the wrong media type, so the direct response is to run JSON contract tests against staging service examples.

“Scan extension packages and telemetry for credential material” concerns the alternative task “use supported secret storage or secure authorization flow rather than embedding the token in source”, but the stated failure is that a supplier API requires JSON content but the AL request transmits plain text with the wrong media type. The required measure is to run JSON contract tests against staging service examples.

The proposed “Include arrays with zero, one and many items in regression tests” tests a different control: inspect JSON token types and iterate JsonArray elements using supported AL JSON APIs. The reported condition is that a supplier API requires JSON content but the AL request transmits plain text with the wrong media type; the more direct action is to run JSON contract tests against staging service examples.

“Simulated 503 yields a visible failure or safe fallback without a fake quote” concerns the alternative task “check both transport execution and HTTP response status before accepting returned data”, but the stated failure is that a supplier API requires JSON content but the AL request transmits plain text with the wrong media type. The required measure is to the partner accepts a correctly formatted request and returns the expected schema.

The proposed “The quote is retrieved through the service contract without direct database access” tests a different control: use AL HttpClient/HttpRequestMessage to invoke the authorized REST endpoint and parse its response. The reported condition is that a supplier API requires JSON content but the AL request transmits plain text with the wrong media type; the more direct action is to the partner accepts a correctly formatted request and returns the expected schema.

“All shipment entries are parsed without truncation or runtime conversion errors” supports the separate task “inspect JSON token types and iterate JsonArray elements using supported AL JSON APIs”, not the reported problem: a supplier API requires JSON content but the AL request transmits plain text with the wrong media type. This case instead calls for “The partner accepts a correctly formatted request and returns the expected schema”.