Microsoft MB-820 Bundle

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.

“The intended role can open the page and read only its authorized records” supports the separate task “include appropriate page execution permissions and necessary underlying table-data rights”, not the reported problem: a user can run an app but inherits unintended permissions from multiple assigned permission sets. This case instead calls for “The user's final effective rights match the approved access matrix”.

“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 user can run an app but inherits unintended permissions from multiple assigned permission sets, so the direct response is to the user's final effective rights match the approved access matrix.

“An unauthorized API call fails even when the UI action is hidden” concerns the alternative task “enforce access using resource-side permission sets and protected code paths”, but the stated failure is that a user can run an app but inherits unintended permissions from multiple assigned permission sets. The required measure is to the user's final effective rights match the approved access matrix.

“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 user can run an app but inherits unintended permissions from multiple assigned permission sets. This case instead calls for “inspect effective permissions and role composition, then remove or constrain excessive assignments”.

“Include appropriate page execution permissions and necessary underlying table-data rights” concerns the separate step “include appropriate page execution permissions and necessary underlying table-data rights”. The reported issue is that a user can run an app but inherits unintended permissions from multiple assigned permission sets, so the direct response is to inspect effective permissions and role composition, then remove or constrain excessive assignments.

The proposed “Assign a role with read rights and no unauthorized edit permissions to the relevant table data” 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 user can run an app but inherits unintended permissions from multiple assigned permission sets; the more direct action is to inspect effective permissions and role composition, then remove or constrain excessive assignments.

“Entitlements and permission sets fulfill different access-control functions” concerns the alternative task “model supported entitlements and application rights separately, testing their combined effect”, but the stated failure is that a user can run an app but inherits unintended permissions from multiple assigned permission sets. The required measure is to inspect effective permissions and role composition, then remove or constrain excessive assignments.

The proposed “Data model evolution often requires corresponding permission model updates” tests a different control: add the table-data rights to an appropriate permissionset or permissionsetextension. The reported condition is that a user can run an app but inherits unintended permissions from multiple assigned permission sets; the more direct action is to inspect effective permissions and role composition, then remove or constrain excessive assignments.

“Object execution and data permissions are separate requirements” supports the separate task “include appropriate page execution permissions and necessary underlying table-data rights”, not the reported problem: a user can run an app but inherits unintended permissions from multiple assigned permission sets. This case instead calls for “inspect effective permissions and role composition, then remove or constrain excessive assignments”.

“Check permission drift with every new object declaration” concerns the alternative task “add the table-data rights to an appropriate permissionset or permissionsetextension”, but the stated failure is that a user can run an app but inherits unintended permissions from multiple assigned permission sets. The required measure is to audit effective permissions after role assignment changes.

“Compare effective role grants before each release” supports the separate task “trim permissions to the exact object set and operations required for business tasks”, not the reported problem: a user can run an app but inherits unintended permissions from multiple assigned permission sets. This case instead calls for “Audit effective permissions after role assignment changes”.

“Run explicit negative authorization tests for sensitive operations” concerns the separate step “assign a role with read rights and no unauthorized edit permissions to the relevant table data”. The reported issue is that a user can run an app but inherits unintended permissions from multiple assigned permission sets, so the direct response is to audit effective permissions after role assignment changes.

The proposed “The consumer receives only necessary joined attributes” tests a different control: expose appropriate query columns and links instead of exporting full tables with unused fields. The reported condition is that a business dashboard needs only open orders but its query scans all order statuses; the more direct action is to the result set includes only the intended open orders.

“Consumers can read the result without unsupported update attempts” supports the separate task “document the query's read-only contract and choose an API page for supported mutations”, not the reported problem: a business dashboard needs only open orders but its query scans all order statuses. This case instead calls for “The result set includes only the intended open orders”.

“Results match ledger totals while avoiding unnecessary per-row processing” concerns the alternative task “use a query object with an appropriate aggregation method and grouping columns”, but the stated failure is that a business dashboard needs only open orders but its query scans all order statuses. The required measure is to the result set includes only the intended open orders.

“Use the query for read-oriented analysis and a suitable record/codeunit workflow for writes” supports the separate task “use the query for read-oriented analysis and a suitable record/codeunit workflow for writes”, not the reported problem: a business dashboard needs only open orders but its query scans all order statuses. This case instead calls for “apply a correct filter in the query or at the query execution boundary”.

“Reuse a suitable query data source or aggregate dataset design for report data” concerns the separate step “reuse a suitable query data source or aggregate dataset design for report data”. The reported issue is that a business dashboard needs only open orders but its query scans all order statuses, so the direct response is to apply a correct filter in the query or at the query execution boundary.

“Document the query's read-only contract and choose an API page for supported mutations” concerns the alternative task “document the query's read-only contract and choose an API page for supported mutations”, but the stated failure is that a business dashboard needs only open orders but its query scans all order statuses. The required measure is to apply a correct filter in the query or at the query execution boundary.

“Compare totals after changes to report data source” concerns the separate step “reuse a suitable query data source or aggregate dataset design for report data”. The reported issue is that a business dashboard needs only open orders but its query scans all order statuses, so the direct response is to test status filter changes and index selectivity.

The proposed “Perform contract tests against query endpoints” tests a different control: document the query's read-only contract and choose an API page for supported mutations. The reported condition is that a business dashboard needs only open orders but its query scans all order statuses; the more direct action is to test status filter changes and index selectivity.

“Review query consumers for unintended write expectations” supports the separate task “use the query for read-oriented analysis and a suitable record/codeunit workflow for writes”, not the reported problem: a business dashboard needs only open orders but its query scans all order statuses. This case instead calls for “Test status filter changes and index selectivity”.

“Aggregation granularity follows nonaggregated grouping columns” concerns the alternative task “review grouping columns and Sum/Count aggregation placement”, but the stated failure is that a business dashboard needs only open orders but its query scans all order statuses. The required measure is to apply a correct filter in the query or at the query execution boundary.

“Changing a query's dimensions can alter aggregation grain” supports the separate task “reevaluate grouping and totals when adding the dimension to the query projection”, not the reported problem: a business dashboard needs only open orders but its query scans all order statuses. This case instead calls for “apply a correct filter in the query or at the query execution boundary”.

“Reports can use query-based aggregation for efficient datasets” concerns the separate step “reuse a suitable query data source or aggregate dataset design for report data”. The reported issue is that a business dashboard needs only open orders but its query scans all order statuses, so the direct response is to apply a correct filter in the query or at the query execution boundary.

The proposed “Compare effective role grants before each release” tests a different control: trim permissions to the exact object set and operations required for business tasks. The reported condition is that a report extension fails under a user account although it works with SUPER permission; the more direct action is to run functional smoke tests with nonadmin users.

“Test least-privilege roles using actual user scenarios” concerns the separate step “include appropriate page execution permissions and necessary underlying table-data rights”. The reported issue is that a report extension fails under a user account although it works with SUPER permission, so the direct response is to run functional smoke tests with nonadmin users.

“Review entitlement-to-role effects when product packaging changes” concerns the alternative task “model supported entitlements and application rights separately, testing their combined effect”, but the stated failure is that a report extension fails under a user account although it works with SUPER permission. The required measure is to run functional smoke tests with nonadmin users.

“Composite permissions may be broader than an individual set suggests” supports the separate task “inspect effective permissions and role composition, then remove or constrain excessive assignments”, not the reported problem: a report extension fails under a user account although it works with SUPER permission. This case instead calls for “identify required object/table permissions and provide the narrowest supported permission set”.

“Elevated execution must be deliberately scoped and reviewed” concerns the alternative task “use documented permissions properties or least-privilege execution design where applicable”, but the stated failure is that a report extension fails under a user account although it works with SUPER permission. The required measure is to identify required object/table permissions and provide the narrowest supported permission set.

The proposed “Object execution and data permissions are separate requirements” tests a different control: include appropriate page execution permissions and necessary underlying table-data rights. The reported condition is that a report extension fails under a user account although it works with SUPER permission; the more direct action is to identify required object/table permissions and provide the narrowest supported permission set.