Microsoft MB-820 Bundle

“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.

“Model supported entitlements and application rights separately, testing their combined effect” concerns the separate step “model supported entitlements and application rights separately, testing their combined effect”. 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 identify required object/table permissions and provide the narrowest supported permission set.

“Add the table-data rights to an appropriate permissionset or permissionsetextension” concerns the alternative task “add the table-data rights to an appropriate permissionset or permissionsetextension”, 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 “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 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.

“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 report extension fails under a user account although it works with SUPER permission. The required measure is to the report runs under the intended role without granting SUPER.

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 report extension fails under a user account although it works with SUPER permission; the more direct action is to the report runs under the intended role without granting SUPER.

“Authorized users can perform required operations on the new table only” supports the separate task “add the table-data rights to an appropriate permissionset or permissionsetextension”, not the reported problem: a report extension fails under a user account although it works with SUPER permission. This case instead calls for “The report runs under the intended role without granting SUPER”.

“Promote a versioned extension artifact through sandbox acceptance before production deployment” supports the separate task “promote a versioned extension artifact through sandbox acceptance before production deployment”, 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”.

“Review compile or analyzer compatibility warnings and update the extension in a sandbox before installing the new version” 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 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.

“Use AL labels and language translation resources rather than embedding UI messages as literals” 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 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.

“Gate completion on installed version and smoke-test results” concerns the separate step “separate publish, synchronize, install or upgrade and validation stages with explicit failure reporting”. 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 verify dependency status in deployment pipeline gates.

“Run data migration regression tests with representative historical records” concerns the alternative task “use a versioned upgrade codeunit and preserve/migrate existing records before using the new schema”, 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.

The proposed “Compare package version metadata against deployment records” tests a different control: increment the extension version and follow the supported package publish/upgrade path. 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.

“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.

“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 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.

The proposed “Controlled deployment should promote tested artifacts rather than unverified rebuilds” 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 publish and install compatible dependencies before the dependent.

“The production package hash matches the artifact that passed tests” concerns the alternative task “promote a versioned extension artifact through sandbox acceptance before production deployment”, 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 the extension installs after prerequisites are present and the dependency graph resolves.

The proposed “A seeded tenant retains prior values after the new app version is applied” tests a different control: use a versioned upgrade codeunit and preserve/migrate existing records before using the new schema. 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.

“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.

“Create independent fixtures for each test and use appropriate cleanup or transaction isolation” supports the separate task “create independent fixtures for each test and use appropriate cleanup or transaction isolation”, not the reported problem: a test alters live customer records because the developer runs the suite against production data. This case instead calls for “run Business Central tests using an isolated test environment and controlled fixtures”.

“Use shared test helpers and a clear arrange-act-assert structure” concerns the separate step “use shared test helpers and a clear arrange-act-assert structure”. The reported issue is that a test alters live customer records because the developer runs the suite against production data, so the direct response is to run Business Central tests using an isolated test environment and controlled fixtures.

“Use the appropriate TestPage interaction and assert resulting business state” concerns the alternative task “use the appropriate TestPage interaction and assert resulting business state”, but the stated failure is that a test alters live customer records because the developer runs the suite against production data. The required measure is to run Business Central tests using an isolated test environment and controlled fixtures.

“Include state assertions after critical page actions” supports the separate task “use the appropriate TestPage interaction and assert resulting business state”, not the reported problem: a test alters live customer records because the developer runs the suite against production data. This case instead calls for “Verify environment targeting before test execution”.

“Require tests for every new posting rule” concerns the alternative task “create AL test codeunits with [Test] procedures covering success and rejection branches”, but the stated failure is that a test alters live customer records because the developer runs the suite against production data. The required measure is to verify environment targeting before test execution.

The proposed “Run report regression checks after dataset changes” tests a different control: assert expected dataset values or generated output with representative fixtures. The reported condition is that a test alters live customer records because the developer runs the suite against production data; the more direct action is to verify environment targeting before test execution.

“The build is blocked when an AL test codeunit fails” concerns the separate step “configure and execute supported Business Central tests in the Test Toolkit or automated test runner”. The reported issue is that a test alters live customer records because the developer runs the suite against production data, so the direct response is to the test creates and cleans up synthetic records without touching production customers.

“A changed report that omits lines or totals fails the test” concerns the alternative task “assert expected dataset values or generated output with representative fixtures”, but the stated failure is that a test alters live customer records because the developer runs the suite against production data. The required measure is to the test creates and cleans up synthetic records without touching production customers.

The proposed “Tests produce consistent results when executed alone or in different orders” tests a different control: create independent fixtures for each test and use appropriate cleanup or transaction isolation. The reported condition is that a test alters live customer records because the developer runs the suite against production data; the more direct action is to the test creates and cleans up synthetic records without touching production customers.

“UI automation should validate outcomes, not only control presence” concerns the alternative task “use the appropriate TestPage interaction and assert resulting business state”, but the stated failure is that a test alters live customer records because the developer runs the suite against production data. The required measure is to run Business Central tests using an isolated test environment and controlled fixtures.

The proposed “Deterministic testing avoids hidden inter-test dependencies” tests a different control: create independent fixtures for each test and use appropriate cleanup or transaction isolation. The reported condition is that a test alters live customer records because the developer runs the suite against production data; the more direct action is to run Business Central tests using an isolated test environment and controlled fixtures.

“Upgrade testing differs from clean-install testing” concerns the separate step “seed an older app version with representative data then test upgrade preservation”. The reported issue is that a test alters live customer records because the developer runs the suite against production data, so the direct response is to run Business Central tests using an isolated test environment and controlled fixtures.