Microsoft MB-820 Bundle

“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 edits Microsoft-owned source objects because it believes AppSource packages cannot extend standard behavior. This case instead calls for “Check AppSource compatibility and extension analyzer results before submission”.

“Run translation coverage review before each AppSource release” concerns the alternative task “add language translation files and validate translatable properties for the supported locales”, but the stated failure is that an ISV edits Microsoft-owned source objects because it believes AppSource packages cannot extend standard behavior. The required measure is to check AppSource compatibility and extension analyzer results before submission.

The proposed “Run marketplace-specific checks in CI before submitting a release” tests a different control: run the appropriate AppSourceCop and code analysis gates against the target runtime. The reported condition is that an ISV edits Microsoft-owned source objects because it believes AppSource packages cannot extend standard behavior; the more direct action is to check AppSource compatibility and extension analyzer results before submission.

“App identity and object namespace allocation are distinct packaging concerns” concerns the separate step “allocate supported object ID ranges and check unique app identity and object conflicts”. The reported issue is that an ISV edits Microsoft-owned source objects because it believes AppSource packages cannot extend standard behavior, so the direct response is to implement published tables, page extensions and event subscribers rather than distributing a modified base application.

The proposed “System-level services and business document schemas should not be conflated” tests a different control: use an appropriate System Application API or a distinct reusable extension module. The reported condition is that an ISV edits Microsoft-owned source objects because it believes AppSource packages cannot extend standard behavior; the more direct action is to implement published tables, page extensions and event subscribers rather than distributing a modified base application.

“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 ISV edits Microsoft-owned source objects because it believes AppSource packages cannot extend standard behavior. This case instead calls for “implement published tables, page extensions and event subscribers rather than distributing a modified base application”.

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 an ISV edits Microsoft-owned source objects because it believes AppSource packages cannot extend standard behavior; the more direct action is to the extension passes compatibility tests while the base application remains independently updatable.

“Compilation and installation resolve the prerequisite app before loading dependent objects” supports the separate task “declare the exact dependency identifier and compatible version constraints in the manifest”, not the reported problem: an ISV edits Microsoft-owned source objects because it believes AppSource packages cannot extend standard behavior. This case instead calls for “The extension passes compatibility tests while the base application remains independently updatable”.

“The same app displays approved captions under both configured client languages” concerns the separate step “add language translation files and validate translatable properties for the supported locales”. The reported issue is that an ISV edits Microsoft-owned source objects because it believes AppSource packages cannot extend standard behavior, so the direct response is to the extension passes compatibility tests while the base application remains independently updatable.

The proposed “Use a versioned upgrade codeunit and preserve/migrate existing records before using the new schema” tests a different control: use a versioned upgrade codeunit and preserve/migrate existing records before using the new schema. The reported condition is that a developer stops a debugging session and assumes it automatically undoes a published schema change; the more direct action is to separate debugger lifecycle from extension publish, install and uninstall procedures.

“Review compile or analyzer compatibility warnings and update the extension in a sandbox before installing the new version” supports the separate task “review compile or analyzer compatibility warnings and update the extension in a sandbox before installing the new version”, not the reported problem: a developer stops a debugging session and assumes it automatically undoes a published schema change. This case instead calls for “separate debugger lifecycle from extension publish, install and uninstall procedures”.

“Increment the extension version and follow the supported package publish/upgrade path” concerns the separate step “increment the extension version and follow the supported package publish/upgrade path”. The reported issue is that a developer stops a debugging session and assumes it automatically undoes a published schema change, so the direct response is to separate debugger lifecycle from extension publish, install and uninstall procedures.

“Run data migration regression tests with representative historical records” supports the separate task “use a versioned upgrade codeunit and preserve/migrate existing records before using the new schema”, not the reported problem: a developer stops a debugging session and assumes it automatically undoes a published schema change. This case instead calls for “Record deployed app versions before and after debug sessions”.

“Gate completion on installed version and smoke-test results” concerns the alternative task “separate publish, synchronize, install or upgrade and validation stages with explicit failure reporting”, but the stated failure is that a developer stops a debugging session and assumes it automatically undoes a published schema change. The required measure is to record deployed app versions before and after debug sessions.

The proposed “Monitor deprecation and breaking-change notices before release windows” tests a different control: review compile or analyzer compatibility warnings and update the extension in a sandbox before installing the new version. The reported condition is that a developer stops a debugging session and assumes it automatically undoes a published schema change; the more direct action is to record deployed app versions before and after debug sessions.

“User-facing text belongs in localizable resources” concerns the separate step “use AL labels and language translation resources rather than embedding UI messages as literals”. The reported issue is that a developer stops a debugging session and assumes it automatically undoes a published schema change, so the direct response is to separate debugger lifecycle from extension publish, install and uninstall procedures.

“Installation lifecycle hooks differ from ordinary page execution and upgrades” concerns the alternative task “use an installation codeunit with appropriate company initialization and idempotent setup”, but the stated failure is that a developer stops a debugging session and assumes it automatically undoes a published schema change. The required measure is to separate debugger lifecycle from extension publish, install and uninstall procedures.

The proposed “Build success does not guarantee extension installation prerequisites” tests a different control: publish and install compatible dependencies before the dependent .app file. The reported condition is that a developer stops a debugging session and assumes it automatically undoes a published schema change; the more direct action is to separate debugger lifecycle from extension publish, install and uninstall procedures.

The proposed “A breakpoint is hit in the relevant AL trigger and the correct session is identified” tests a different control: use supported VS Code AL launch or attach debugging with a matching sandbox and symbols. The reported condition is that a developer stops a debugging session and assumes it automatically undoes a published schema change; the more direct action is to the app remains installed or is removed only by an explicit supported lifecycle action.

“The production package hash matches the artifact that passed tests” supports the separate task “promote a versioned extension artifact through sandbox acceptance before production deployment”, not the reported problem: a developer stops a debugging session and assumes it automatically undoes a published schema change. This case instead calls for “The app remains installed or is removed only by an explicit supported lifecycle action”.

“The custom page loads on the target platform and key operations pass regression tests” concerns the separate step “review compile or analyzer compatibility warnings and update the extension in a sandbox before installing the new version”. The reported issue is that a developer stops a debugging session and assumes it automatically undoes a published schema change, so the direct response is to the app remains installed or is removed only by an explicit supported lifecycle action.

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 app compiles but fails installation because a dependent extension has not been installed; the more direct action is to verify dependency status in deployment pipeline gates.

“Run multilingual UI checks after adding new messages” supports the separate task “use AL labels and language translation resources rather than embedding UI messages as literals”, not the reported problem: an app compiles but fails installation because a dependent extension has not been installed. This case instead calls for “Verify dependency status in deployment pipeline gates”.

“Record deployed app versions before and after debug sessions” concerns the alternative task “separate debugger lifecycle from extension publish, install and uninstall procedures”, but the stated failure is that an app compiles but fails installation because a dependent extension has not been installed. The required measure is to verify dependency status in deployment pipeline gates.

“Use AL labels and language translation resources rather than embedding UI messages as literals” supports the separate task “use AL labels and language translation resources rather than embedding UI messages as literals”, not the reported problem: an app compiles but fails installation because a dependent extension has not been installed. This case instead calls for “publish and install compatible dependencies before the dependent”.

“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 app compiles but fails installation because a dependent extension has not been installed, so the direct response is to publish and install compatible dependencies before the dependent.

“Separate debugger lifecycle from extension publish, install and uninstall procedures” concerns the alternative task “separate debugger lifecycle from extension publish, install and uninstall procedures”, but the stated failure is that an app compiles but fails installation because a dependent extension has not been installed. The required measure is to publish and install compatible dependencies before the dependent.

“Debugging does not constitute an extension rollback mechanism” concerns the separate step “separate debugger lifecycle from extension publish, install and uninstall procedures”. The reported issue is that an app compiles but fails installation because a dependent extension has not been installed, so the direct response is to publish and install compatible dependencies before the dependent.

The proposed “Deployment comprises several independently verifiable lifecycle operations” tests a different control: separate publish, synchronize, install or upgrade and validation stages with explicit failure reporting. The reported condition is that an app compiles but fails installation because a dependent extension has not been installed; the more direct action is to publish and install compatible dependencies before the dependent.

“Versioned app identity is central to the extension lifecycle” supports the separate task “increment the extension version and follow the supported package publish/upgrade path”, not the reported problem: an app compiles but fails installation because a dependent extension has not been installed. This case instead calls for “publish and install compatible dependencies before the dependent”.

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 app compiles but fails installation because a dependent extension has not been installed; the more direct action is to the extension installs after prerequisites are present and the dependency graph resolves.

“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 app compiles but fails installation because a dependent extension has not been installed. This case instead calls for “The extension installs after prerequisites are present and the dependency graph resolves”.

“A locale switch displays reviewed translations without altering business logic” concerns the separate step “use AL labels and language translation resources rather than embedding UI messages as literals”. The reported issue is that an app compiles but fails installation because a dependent extension has not been installed, so the direct response is to the extension installs after prerequisites are present and the dependency graph resolves.